2022 Joint ESC/EACTS review of the 2018 guideline recommendations on the revascularization of left main coronary artery disease in patients at low surgical risk and anatomy suitable for PCI or CABG

Reduction of Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy by PCI: Quantification and Correlation With Outcome After Heart Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) might improve outcome at severe stages of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) among patients after heart transplantation (HTx). Yet, risk stratification of HTx patients after PCI remains challenging.

AIMS

To assess whether the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) CAV classification remains prognostic after PCI and whether risk-stratification models of non-transplanted patients extend to HTx patients with CAV.

METHODS

At 2 European academic centers, 203 patients were stratified in cohort 1 (ISHLT CAV1, without PCI, n = 126) or cohort 2 (ISHLT CAV2 and 3, with PCI). At first diagnosis of CAV or first PCI, respectively, ISHLT CAV grades, SYNTAX scores I and II (SXS-I, SXS-II) were used to quantify baseline and residual CAV (rISHLT, rSXS-I, rSXS-II). RSXS-I > 0 defined incomplete revascularization (IR).

RESULTS

SXS-II predicted mortality in cohort 1 (P = 0.004), whereas SXS-I (P = 0.009) and SXS-II (P = 0.002) predicted mortality in cohort 2. Post-PCI, IR (P = 0.004), high rISHLT (P = 0.02) and highest tertile of rSXS-II (P = 0.006) were associated with higher 5-year mortality. In bivariable Cox analysis, baseline SXS-II, IR and rSXS-II remained predictors of 5-year mortality post-PCI. There was a strong inverse relationship between baseline and rSXS-I (r = -0.55; P < 0.001 and r = -0.50; P = 0.003, respectively) regarding the interval to first reintervention.

CONCLUSION

People with ISHLT CAV classification could apply for risk stratification after PCI. SYNTAX scores could be complemental for risk stratification and individualization of invasive follow-up of HTx patients with CAV.

State-of-the-art percutaneous coronary intervention for left main coronary artery disease in Japan

Percutaneous coronary intervention for left main coronary artery disease (LM-PCI) represents a high-risk yet life-saving procedure that has evolved significantly over the years. This review outlines the current state-of-the-art practices for LM-PCI in Japan in detail, emphasizing the integration of coronary physiology and intracoronary imaging alongside with evidence-based standardized technique using latest drug-eluting stents. These advancements enable precise lesion assessment, stent sizing, and optimal deployment, thereby enhancing procedural safety and efficacy. Despite discrepancies between current guidelines favoring coronary artery bypass grafting and real-world practice trends towards increased LM-PCI adoption, particularly in elderly populations with multiple comorbidities, careful patient selection and procedural planning are critical. Future perspectives include further refining LM-PCI through conducting randomized controlled trials integrating advanced techniques and addressing the issue of ostial left circumflex lesions and nationwide standardization of medical care for LM disease.

Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: 6 versus 12 Months

Background/Objectives: For patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of an unprotected left main coronary artery (uLMCA) stenosis, the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remains a matter of debate. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of 6- versus 12-month DAPT duration in patients with PCI of an uLMCA and stable angina. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we included consecutive patients of our centre who underwent PCI of uLMCA stenosis for stable angina and who received DAPT with acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel for either 6 or 12 months. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at one year. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the primary endpoint, definite/probable stent thrombosis, and bleeding. Clinical outcomes were assessed by unadjusted analysis and by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: Out of 984 included patients, 339 (34.5%) received DAPT for 6 months and 645 (65.5%) for 12 months. The primary endpoint occurred in 51 patients (15.2%) in the 6-month group and in 104 (16.3%) in the 12-month group (p = 0.674). Incidences of stent thrombosis (0.9% versus 0.3%, p = 0.224) and BARC 3,4,5 bleeding (6% versus 5.8%, p = 0.808) were also comparable in both groups. We found no significant differences in the primary endpoint and its components or BARC 3,4,5 bleeding between 6 and 12 months. Conclusions: Our findings do not support the extension of DAPT beyond 6 months after PCI for uLMCA in patients with stable angina.

Comparison of intravascular ultrasound-guided with optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for left main distal bifurcation lesions: Rationale and design of the ISOLEDS trial

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can provide benefits for anatomically suitable left main coronary artery (LMCA) lesions. When compared to traditional coronary angiography (CAG) -guided PCI, the use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance has shown significant long-term prognostic improvements in LMCA PCI. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) offers a higher axial resolution than IVUS. However, there is currently a lack of relevant randomized controlled trials investigating the use of OCT specifically for left main distal bifurcation lesions.

METHODS

The ISOLEDS trial is an ongoing multicenter study that aims to compare IVUS-guided PCI with OCT-guided PCI for patients with true LMCA distal bifurcation lesions. This prospective, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial will enroll a total of 664 patients with visually-defined Medina 1,1,1 or 0,1,1 classification of left main distal bifurcation lesions. The patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either IVUS-guided or OCT-guided PCI. The primary endpoint is to assess the occurrence of target lesion failure (TLF) within 12 months after the procedure. After undergoing PCI, patients are required to visit the hospital for a 12-month clinical follow-up. During this clinical assessment, CAG can be performed to evaluate the status of target lesions.

DISCUSSION

The ISOLEDS trial represents the first attempt to compare two distinct intracoronary imaging techniques for guiding PCI in patients with true LMCA distal bifurcation lesions. By evaluating and comparing the outcomes of these two imaging techniques, the trial results will aid operators in selection of the most effective approach for guiding PCI in these patients.

The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The optimal revascularization strategy for coronary artery disease depends on various factors, such as disease complexity, patient characteristics, and preferences. Including a heart team in complex cases is crucial to ensure optimal outcomes. Decision-making between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting must consider each patient's clinical profile and coronary anatomy. While current practice guidelines offer some insight into the optimal revascularization approach for the various phenotypes of coronary artery disease, the evidence to support either strategy continues to evolve and grow. Given the large amount of contemporary data on revascularization, this review aims to comprehensively summarize the literature on coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients across the spectrum of coronary artery disease phenotypes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Contemporary evidence suggests that for patients with triple vessel disease, coronary artery bypass grafting is preferred over percutaneous coronary intervention due to better long-term outcomes, including lower rates of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Similarly, for patients with left main coronary artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting can be considered, as they have shown similar efficacy in terms of major adverse cardiac events, but there may be a slightly higher risk of death with percutaneous coronary intervention. For proximal left anterior descending artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting are viable options, but coronary artery bypass grafting has shown lower rates of repeat revascularization and better relief from angina. The Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score can help in decision-making by predicting the risk of adverse events and guiding the choice between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. European and American guidelines both agree with including a heart team that can develop and lay out individualized, optimal treatment options with respect for patient preferences. The debate between coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in multiple different scenarios will continue to develop as technology and techniques improve for both procedures. Risk factors, pre, peri, and post-procedural complications involved in both revascularization strategies will continue to be mitigated to optimize outcomes for those patients for which coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention provide ultimate benefit. Methods to avoid unnecessary revascularization continue to develop as well as percutaneous technology that may allow patients to avoid surgical intervention when possible. With such changes, revascularization guidelines for specific patient populations may change in the coming years, which can serve as a limitation of this time-dated review.

Left main revascularization guidelines: navigating the data

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article explores recent developments in left main revascularization, with a focus on appraising the latest American and European guidelines.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent pooled data analysis from four major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for left main coronary artery stenosis indicate an advantage for CABG over PCI in regard to freedom from major adverse cardiovascular events, despite no significant difference in mortality observed at 5 years. Additional data support the use of CABG for patients with left ventricular dysfunction, complex left main lesions, diffuse coronary disease, and diabetes.

SUMMARY

The data underpinning the guidelines on each revascularization modality (PCI versus CABG) must consider factors such as lesion complexity, diabetes, and left ventricular dysfunction. Additionally, the findings of the four major RCTs upon which the guidelines are based must be ascertained in light of the latest advancements in these revascularization techniques.

Role of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Complex High-Risk and Indicated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Current Indications, Device Options, and Potential Complications

Improved expertise and technological advancements have enabled the safe and effective performance of complex and high-risk-indicated percutaneous coronary intervention (CHIP) in patients previously considered inoperable or high-risk. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices play a crucial role in stabilizing hemodynamics during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) -related ischemia, thereby reducing the risk of major adverse events and achieving a more complete revascularization. However, the use of MCS devices in protected PCI is not without risks, including peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI), bleeding, and access-related complications. Despite numerous observational studies, there is a significant lack of randomized clinical trials comparing different MCS devices in various CHIP scenarios and evaluating their long-term safety and efficacy profiles. This review aims to summarize the current evidence regarding the benefits of MCS devices during CHIPs, offer a practical guide for selecting appropriate devices based on clinical scenarios, and highlight the unanswered questions that future trials need to address.

Technological Advances Are Associated With Better Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Unprotected Left Main Disease

BACKGROUND

Few large-scale studies have evaluated the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) technological advances in the treatment of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease (LM-CAD). We aim to identify independent factors that affect the prognosis of PCI in patients with unprotected LM-CAD and to assess the impact of PCI technological advances on long-term clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 4512 consecutive patients who underwent unprotected LM-CAD PCI at Fuwai Hospital from 2004 to 2016 were enrolled. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify which techniques can independently affect the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization). The incidence of 3-year MACEs was 9.0% (406/4512). Four new PCI techniques were identified as the independent protective factors of MACEs, including second-generation drug-eluting stents (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.37-0.99]), postdilatation (HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59-0.94]), final kissing balloon inflation (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.99]), and using intravascular ultrasound (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]). The relative hazard of 3-year MACEs was reduced by ≈50% with use of all 4 techniques compared with no technique use (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.32-0.87]).

CONCLUSIONS

PCI technological advances including postdilatation, second-generation drug-eluting stent, final kissing balloon inflation, and intravascular ultrasound guidance were associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients who underwent unprotected LM-CAD PCI.

Hybrid coronary revascularization: position paper of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions

Myocardial revascularization in coronary artery disease via percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery effectively relieves symptoms, significantly improves prognosis and quality of life when combined with guideline-directed medical therapy. Hybrid coronary revascularization is a promising alternative to percutaneous coronary intervention or CABG in selected patients and is defined as a planned and/or intended combination of consecutive CABG surgery using at least 1 internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending (LAD), and catheter-based coronary intervention to the non-LAD vessels for the treatment of multivessel disease. The main indications for hybrid coronary revascularization are (i) to achieve complete revascularization in patients who cannot undergo conventional CABG, (ii) to treat patients with acute coronary syndromes and multivessel disease with a non-LAD vessel as the culprit lesion that needs revascularization and (iii) in highly select patients with multivessel disease with complex LAD lesions and simple percutaneous coronary intervention targets for all other vessels. Hybrid coronary revascularization patients receive a left internal mammary artery graft to the LAD artery through a minimal incision along with percutaneous coronary intervention to the remaining diseased coronary vessels using latest generation drug-eluting stents. A collaborative environment with a dedicated heart team is the optimal platform to perform such interventions, which aim to improve the quality and outcome of myocardial revascularization. This position paper analyses the rationale of hybrid coronary revascularization and the currently available evidence on the various techniques and delves into the sequence of the interventions and pharmacological management during and after the procedure.

Long-term impact of intravascular ultrasound-guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention on unprotected left main. The IMPACTUS-LM, an observational, multicentric study

INTRODUCTION

The potential benefit on long term outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) on Unprotected Left Main (ULM) driven by IntraVascular UltraSound (IVUS) remains to be defined.

METHODS

IMPACTUS LM-PCI is an observational, multicenter study that enrolled consecutive patients with ULM disease undergoing coronary angioplasty in 13 European high-volume centers from January 2002 to December 2015. Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACEs) a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, target vessel revascularization (TVR) and myocardial infarction (MI) were the primary endpoints, while its single components along with all cause death the secondary ones.

RESULTS

627 patients with ULM disease were enrolled, 213 patients (34%) underwent IVUS-guided PCI while 414 (66%) angioguided PCI. Patients in the two cohorts had similar prevalence of risk factors except for active smoking and clinical presentation. During a median follow-up of 7.5 years, 47 (22%) patients in the IVUS group and 211 (51%) in the angio-guided group underwent the primary endpoint (HR 0.42; 95% CI [0.31-0.58] p < 0.001). After multivariate adjustment, IVUS was significantly associated with a reduced incidence of the primary endpoint (adj HR 0.39; 95% CI [0.23-0.64], p < 0.001), mainly driven by a reduction of TVR (ad HR 0.30, 95% CI [0.15-0.62], p = 0.001) and of all-cause death (adj HR 0.47, 95% CI [0.28-0.82], p = 0.008). IVUS use, age, diabetes, side branch stenosis, DES and creatinine at admission were independent predictors of MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing ULM PCI, the use of IVUS was associated with a reduced risk at long-term follow-up of MACE, all-cause death and subsequent revascularization.

Fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio in coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis and practice review

Objective

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are invasive methods to assess the functional significance of intermediate severity coronary lesions. Both indexes have been extensively validated in clinical trials in guiding revascularisation in patients with stable ischaemic heart disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with improved clinical outcomes. However, the role of these tools in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is less clear.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomised trials and observational studies was carried out to help in determining the optimal strategy for assessing lesion severity and selecting graft targets in patients undergoing CABG. Electronic searches were carried out on Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. A group of four authors independently screened and then assessed the retrieved records. Cochrane's Risk of Bias and Robins-I tools were used for bias assessment. A survey was conducted among surgeons and cardiologists to describe current attitudes towards the preoperative use of functional coronary investigations in practice.

Results

Clinical outcomes including mortality at 30 days, perioperative myocardial infarction, number of grafts, incidence of stroke, rate of further need for revascularisation, and patient-reported quality of life did not differ in CABG guided by functional testing from those guided by traditional angiography.The survey revealed that in half of the surgical and cardiology units functional assessment is performed in CABG patients; there is a general perception that functional testing has improved patient care and its use would clarify the role of moderate coronary lesions that often need multidisciplinary rediscussions; moderate stenosis are felt to be clinically relevant; and anatomical considerations need to be taken into account together with functional assessment.

Conclusions

At present, the evidence to support the routine use of functional testing in intermediate lesions for planning CABG is currently insufficient. The pooled data currently available do not show an increased risk in mortality, myocardial injury, and stroke in the FFR/iFR-guided group. Further trials with highly selected populations are needed to clarify the best strategy.

Systematic Review Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier (CRD42023414604).

Merging machine learning and patient preference: a novel tool for risk prediction of percutaneous coronary interventions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Predicting personalized risk for adverse events following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains critical in weighing treatment options, employing risk mitigation strategies, and enhancing shared decision-making. This study aimed to employ machine learning models using pre-procedural variables to accurately predict common post-PCI complications.

METHODS

A group of 66 adults underwent a semiquantitative survey assessing a preferred list of outcomes and model display. The machine learning cohort included 107 793 patients undergoing PCI procedures performed at 48 hospitals in Michigan between 1 April 2018 and 31 December 2021 in the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) registry separated into training and validation cohorts. External validation was conducted in the Cardiac Care Outcomes Assessment Program database of 56 583 procedures in 33 hospitals in Washington.

RESULTS

Overall rate of in-hospital mortality was 1.85% (n = 1999), acute kidney injury 2.51% (n = 2519), new-onset dialysis 0.44% (n = 462), stroke 0.41% (n = 447), major bleeding 0.89% (n = 942), and transfusion 2.41% (n = 2592). The model demonstrated robust discrimination and calibration for mortality {area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 0.930 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.920-0.940]}, acute kidney injury [AUC: 0.893 (95% CI 0.883-0.903)], dialysis [AUC: 0.951 (95% CI 0.939-0.964)], stroke [AUC: 0.751 (95%CI 0.714-0.787)], transfusion [AUC: 0.917 (95% CI 0.907-0.925)], and major bleeding [AUC: 0.887 (95% CI 0.870-0.905)]. Similar discrimination was noted in the external validation population. Survey subjects preferred a comprehensive list of individually reported post-procedure outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Using common pre-procedural risk factors, the BMC2 machine learning models accurately predict post-PCI outcomes. Utilizing patient feedback, the BMC2 models employ a patient-centred tool to clearly display risks to patients and providers (https://shiny.bmc2.org/pci-prediction/). Enhanced risk prediction prior to PCI could help inform treatment selection and shared decision-making discussions.

Outcomes According to Coronary Revascularization Modality in the ISCHEMIA Trial

BACKGROUND

In the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial, the risk of ischemic events was similar in patients with stable coronary artery disease treated with an invasive (INV) strategy of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or surgical (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) coronary revascularization and a conservative (CON) strategy of initial medical therapy.

OBJECTIVES

The authors analyzed separately the outcomes of INV patients treated with PCI or CABG.

METHODS

Patients without preceding primary outcome events were categorized as INV-PCI or INV-CABG from the time of revascularization. The ISCHEMIA primary outcome (composite of cardiovascular death, protocol-defined myocardial infarction or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) was used.

RESULTS

Among INV-CABG patients, primary outcome events occurred in 84 of 512 (16.4%) at a median follow-up of 2.85 years; 48 events (57.1%) occurred within 30 days after CABG, including 40 procedural MIs. Among INV-PCI patients, primary outcome events occurred in 147 of 1,500 (9.8%) at median follow-up of 2.94 years; 31 of which (21.1%) occurred within 30 days after PCI, including 24 procedural MIs. In comparison, 352 of 2,591 CON patients (13.6%) had primary outcome events at a median follow-up of 3.2 years, 22 of which (6.3%) occurred within 30 days of randomization. The adjusted primary outcome risks were higher after both CABG and PCI within 30 days (HR: 16.25 [95% CI: 11.44-23.07] and HR: 2.99 [95% CI: 1.97-4.53]) and lower thereafter (0.63 [95% CI: 0.44-0.89] and 0.66 [95% CI: 0.53-0.82]).

CONCLUSIONS

In ISCHEMIA, early revascularization by PCI and CABG was associated with higher early risks and lower long-term risks of cardiovascular events compared with CON. The early risk was greatest after CABG, owing to protocol-defined procedural MIs.

Revascularization of low-surgical risk patients with disease of the left main coronary artery: a fresh look at the evidence

This editorial refers to ‘2022 joint ESC/EACTS review of the 2018 guideline recommendations on the revascularization of left main coronary artery disease in patients at low surgical risk and anatomy suitable for PCI or CABG’, by R.A.