Late and very late stent thrombosis following drug-eluting stent implantation in unprotected left main coronary artery: a multicentre registry

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Recently, both US and European guidelines have predominantly recommended coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the preferred revascularisation method. However, emerging data have raised the possibility of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) being a viable and effective alternative. This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the latest insights from major clinical trials to ascertain whether PCI could be as effective as CABG in treating left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. To achieve this, a comprehensive systematic search was conducted across databases, including Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov. The search spanned from the inception of these databases to August 20, 2022, and exclusively focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Employing the random effects model, selected studies underwent rigorous analysis. The study outcomes encompassed a spectrum of factors such as all-cause mortality, major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and revascularisation procedures. The observation periods of interest included the 30-day mark, 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years. The analysis integrated six RCTs, revealing noteworthy patterns. In terms of all-cause mortality, PCI demonstrated non-inferiority to CABG across all observed time frames: 30 days (OR 0.6), 1 year (OR 0.77), 5 years (OR 1.41), and 10 years (OR 1.08). Analysis of MACCE outcomes favored PCI at 30 days and CABG at 5 years. The utilisation of the original five-year EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularisation) trial definition for MI highlighted higher MI rates for PCI compared to CABG (OR 1.66, P < 0.05). Intriguingly, when the subsequently released EXCEL data, aligned with the third universal MI definition, was incorporated, the five-year data consistently leaned towards CABG. Specifically, the PCI group exhibited 7.5% MI rates in contrast to the 3.6% in the CABG cohort (OR 2.19, P < 0.001). Concerning stroke, PCI proved advantageous at 30 days and 1 year while exhibiting no significant disparity at 5 and 10 years. Revascularisation procedures favoured CABG at one and five years, with comparability at the remaining time points. In summation, the outcomes of this comprehensive meta-analysis suggest that PCI could serve as a feasible alternative to CABG in the context of uncomplicated LMCA disease. It's worth noting that CABG might still hold an advantage for complex lesions.

Intravascular Imaging versus Physiological Assessment versus Biomechanics-Which Is a Better Guide for Coronary Revascularization

Today, coronary artery disease (CAD) continues to be a prominent cause of death worldwide. A reliable assessment of coronary stenosis represents a prerequisite for the appropriate management of CAD. Nevertheless, there are still major challenges pertaining to some limitations of current imaging and functional diagnostic modalities. The present review summarizes the current data on invasive functional and intracoronary imaging assessment using optical coherence tomography (OCT), and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Amongst the functional parameters-on top of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)-we point to novel angiography-based measures such as quantitative flow ratio (QFR), vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR), angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFRangio), and computed tomography-derived flow fractional reserve (FFR-CT), as well as hybrid approaches focusing on optical flow ratio (OFR), computational fluid dynamics and attempts to quantify the forces exaggerated by blood on the coronary plaque and vessel wall.

Management of failed stenting of the unprotected left main coronary artery

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly accepted as treatment for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease especially in those patients who are unsuitable for cardiac surgery. Treatment of any stent failure is associated with increased complexity and worse clinical outcomes when compared with de novo lesion revascularization. Intracoronary imaging has provided new insight into mechanisms of stent failure and treatment options have developed considerably over the last decade. There is paucity of evidence on the management strategy for stent failure in the specific setting of ULMCA. Treating any left main with PCI requires careful consideration and consequently treatment of failed stents in ULMCA is complex and provides unique challenges. Consequently, we provide an overview of ULMCA stent failure, proposing a tailored algorithm to guide best management and decision in daily clinical practice, with a special focus on intracoronary imaging characterization of causal mechanisms and specific technical and procedural considerations.

Left main coronary artery compression by pulmonary artery aneurism in patients with long standing pulmonary arterial hypertension

This review focuses on a rare complication of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), extravasation compression of the left coronary artery (LCA) dilated by the pulmonary artery. The review described clinical manifestations and methods for diagnostics of LCA compression, and advantages of the endovascular correction of this complication in patients with pulmonary hypertension. Selection of a device to be implanted during the endovascular intervention in these patients was discussed with due account for concomitant treatment with oral anticoagulants. As an illustration of the issue under discussion, a clinical case of acute coronary syndrome in a female patient from the PAH Registry of the V. A. Almazov National Medical Research Center was provided.

[Oral anticoagulants in elderly patients with coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation]

Anti-thrombotic management of percutaneous coronary intervention and atrial fibrillation relies on dual antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation respectively. Because of people ageing, the coexistence of coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation is increasing. This coexistence raises concerns about the anti-thrombotic strategy, particularly about the association of dual antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation, known as triple therapy. This triple therapy is responsible for a dramatic increase in bleeding risk (3-4 fold) especially in elderlies. However, older patients are also at increased risk of ischemic events. In this setting, dual anti-thrombotic strategies combining non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants and a P2Y12 inhibitor have been developed. These strategies provide a net benefit by reducing bleeding events. Therefore, they are becoming an attractive alternative, especially for frailer patient. This article reviews the rational, risks and strategies of anti-thrombotic therapy in elderly people with coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation.

Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is as effective and safe as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared PCI and CABG in left main coronary disease.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus and relevant references for RCTs (inception through, November 20, 2016 without language restrictions) and performed meta-analysis using random-effects model. All-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization rate, stroke, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were the measured outcomes.

RESULTS

Six RCTs with a total population of 4700 were analyzed. There was no difference in all-cause mortality at 30-day, one-year, and five-year (1.8% vs 1.1%; OR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.26-1.39; P=.23; I² =9%) follow-up between PCI and CABG. CABG group had less myocardial infarction (MI) at five-year follow-up than PCI (5% vs 2.5%; OR 2.04; CI: 1.30-3.19; P=.002; I² =1%). Revascularization rate favored CABG in one-year (8.6% vs 4.5%; OR 2; CI: 1.46-2.73; P<.0001; I² =45%) and five-year (15.9% vs 9.9%; OR 1.73; CI: 1.36-2.20; P<.0001; I² =0%) follow-up. Although stroke rate was lower in PCI group at 1 year, there was no difference in longer follow-up. MACCE at 5 years favored CABG (24% vs 18%; OR 1.45; CI: 1.19-1.76; P=.0001; I² =0%). On subgroup analysis, MACCE were not different between two groups in low-to-intermediate SYNTAX group while it was higher for PCI group with high SYNTAX group.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous coronary intervention could be as safe and effective as CABG in a select group of left main coronary artery disease patients.

Long-Term Outcomes After Stent Implantation for Left Main Coronary Artery (from the Multicenter Assessing Optimal Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting Registry)

We assessed long-term outcomes after left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenting based on lesion types and stenting strategies. In the Assessing Optimal percutaneous coronary Intervention for Left Main Coronary Artery stenting registry, we evaluated 1,607 consecutive patients undergoing stent implantation for unprotected LMCA lesions (bifurcation lesions: n = 1318 and nonbifurcation lesions: n = 289). Among the bifurcation lesions, 1,281 lesions were treated with stenting across the bifurcation (bifurcation 1-stent strategy: n = 999 or bifurcation 2-stent strategy: n = 282). Among the nonbifurcation lesions, 219 lesions were treated with nonbifurcation stenting. The median follow-up duration was 4.6 (95% CI 4.5 to 4.8) years. The 5-year risk of bifurcation lesions relative to nonbifurcation lesions was neutral for target lesion revascularization (TLR) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.23, p = 0.34) and all-cause death (adjusted HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.71, p = 0.26). The risk of the bifurcation 1-stent strategy relative to nonbifurcation stenting in nonbifurcation lesions was also neutral for TLR (adjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.90, p = 0.47) and all-cause death (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.18, p = 0.27). However, the bifurcation 2-stent strategy was associated with worse clinical outcomes than the bifurcation 1-stent strategy in TLR (adjusted HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.52, p = 0.002) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (crude HR 3.50, 95% CI 1.32 to 9.33, p = 0.01), despite neutral risk for all-cause death (adjusted HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.36, p = 0.99). There was no definite or probable very late stent thrombosis up to 5 years. In conclusion, long-term outcomes after stent implantation for unprotected LMCA lesions were not dependent on the bifurcation lesion types but related to the bifurcation stenting strategies with worse outcomes for the bifurcation 2-stent strategy.

Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Significant unprotected left main stem (ULMS) disease is in approximately 5% to 7% of patients undergoing coronary angiography. Historically, coronary artery bypass grafting has been the gold standard treatment of these patients. With recent advances in stent technology, adjunctive pharmacotherapy, and operator experience, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly regarded as a viable alternative treatment option, especially in patients with favorable coronary anatomy (low and intermediate SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) scores). This article aims to discuss the evidence supporting PCI for ULMS disease, current guidelines, and technical aspects.

Drug-eluting stents in unprotected left main coronary artery disease

Though coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) has traditionally been the cornerstone of therapy in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease, recent evidence supports the use of percutaneous coronary intervention in appropriate patients. Indeed in patients with ULMCA disease, drug-eluting stents (DES) have shown similar incidence of hard end points, fewer periprocedural complications and lower stroke rates compared with CABG, though at the cost of increased revascularization with time. Furthermore, the availability of newer efficacious and safer DES as well as improvements in diagnostic tools, percutaneous techniques and, importantly, a better patient selection, allowed percutaneous coronary intervention a viable alternative to CABG of left main-patients with low disease complexity; however, even in this interventional era characterized by efficacious DES, patients with ULMCA disease remain a challenging high-risk population where outcomes strongly depend on clinical characteristics, anatomical disease complexity and extension and operator's experience. This review summarizes the role of DES in ULMCA disease patients.

Invasive assessment modalities of unprotected left main stenosis

Among all coronary lesions, the decision-making process for the treatment of unprotected left main (ULM) stem lesions is still challenging. Indeed, the optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with ULM disease remains controversial: coronary artery bypass grafting was established as the gold standard, but it is without doubt that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed by experienced operators achieves good results at long term follow up, especially in cases where the ostium and/or shaft of ULM are treated. Thanks to the widespread use of invasive assessment of atherothrombotic ULM stenosis, improved selection of PCI cases and techniques of stenting, better outcomes are now possible. This review seeks to define the place of PCI in ULM disease by describing the different modalities of ULM stenosis assessment.

Serial three-dimensional optical coherence tomography assessment of strut coverage and intraluminal structures after drug-eluting stent implantation

Understanding of intraluminal structure and distribution of uncovered struts after drug-eluting stent implantation are limited by only 2-dimensional (2D) optical coherence tomography (OCT) images. We compared tissue coverage with 3-dimensional (3D) OCT and 2D quantitative analyses, and changes in intraluminal structure immediately after (baseline) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation and at follow-up. The 2D analyses of uncovered struts ratio and tissue coverage thickness at a 0.5-mm interval were compared to 3D-OCT images and visually classified for the degree of tissue coverage. The difference in tissue coverage at baseline and follow-up after EES implantation was evaluated with tissue coverage scores (TCS) calculated by the 3D-OCT classification (Grade 0-3). 3D-OCT classifications were negatively correlated with uncovered-to-total struts (r = -0.864, P < 0.001) and positively correlated with tissue coverage thickness (r = 0.905, P < 0.001). Follow-up TCS was greater than baseline TCS (0.2 ± 0.4 vs. 1.4 ± 0.5, P < 0.001). Moreover, changes in intraluminal structures and longitudinal distribution of uncovered struts were assessed. Incomplete stent appositions, in-stent dissections, and thrombi were decreased at follow-up, indicating progressive arterial healing. The distribution of uncovered-to-total struts could be assessed by 3D-OCT, which was related to 2D analysis. Significant correlations between 3D-OCT classifications and quantitative analyses were shown. The classification and visual assessment of intraluminal structures by 3D-OCT were useful in evaluating arterial healing after EES implantation.

Comparison of paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus) and everolimus-eluting stents (Xience) in left main coronary artery disease with 3 years follow-up (from the ESTROFA-LM registry)

Evidence regarding therapy with drug-eluting stents in the left main coronary artery (LM) is based mostly on trials performed with first-generation drug-eluting stents. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes after treatment for unprotected LM disease with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES). The ESTROFA-LM is a multicenter retrospective registry including consecutive patients with unprotected LM disease treated with PES or EES. A total of 770 patients have been included at 21 centers, 415 with treated PES and 355 with EES. Treatment with 2 stents was more frequent with PES (17% vs 10.4%, p = 0.007), whereas intravascular ultrasound was more frequently used with EES (35.2% vs 26%, p = 0.006). The 3-year death and infarction survival rates were 86.1% for PES and 87.3% for EES (p = 0.50) and for death, infarction, and target lesion revascularization were 83.6% versus 82% (p = 0.60), respectively. Definite or probable thrombosis was 1.6% for PES and 1.4% for EES (p = 0.80). The use of 2 stents, age, diabetes, and acute coronary syndromes were independent predictors of mortality. In the subgroup of distal lesions, the use of intravascular ultrasound was an independent predictor of better outcome. Comparison of propensity score-matched groups did not yield differences between the 2 stents. In conclusion, the results of this multicenter registry show comparable safety and efficacy at 3 years for PES and EES in the treatment of LM disease. The use of bifurcation stenting techniques in distal lesions was a relevant independent predictor for events. The use of intravascular ultrasound appears to have a positive impact on patients treated for LM distal disease.

Stenting of left main coronary artery stenosis: A to Z

For several decades, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered as the gold standard treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. The marked improvement in technique and technology makes percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) feasible for patients with unprotected LMCA stenosis. The recent introduction of drug-eluting stents (DESs), together with advances in periprocedural and postprocedural adjunctive pharmacotherapies, has improved outcomes of PCIs of these lesions. Recent studies comparing efficacy and safety of PCIs using drug-eluting stents and CABG revealed comparable results in terms of safety and a lower need for repeat revascularisation for CABG. Patient selection for both the techniques directly impacts clinical outcome. Despite improvement in stent technology and operator experience, management can be challenging especially in LMCA bifurcation lesions and, therefore, an integrated approach combining advanced devices, tailored techniques, adjunctive support of physiological evaluation, and adjunctive pharmacological agents should be reinforced to improve clinical outcome.

Percutaneous revascularization of left main: role of imaging, techniques, and adjunct pharmacology

Refinement of interventional techniques, adjunctive pharmacological therapy, and the introduction of drug-eluting stents have fostered new interest for the percutaneous treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis. Several observational registries, some randomized trials and several meta-analyses have consistently shown no difference in mortality and myocardial infarction between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with ULMCA stenosis, but a higher rate of target vessel revascularization in patients treated with PCI. As a consequence, PCI of ULMCA stenosis has been upgraded to class IIa or IIb indication in the current European or American practice guidelines. However, several critical issues should be properly addressed when pursuing a percutaneous strategy for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis, such as the use of IVUS for procedural guidance, assessment of disease location, optimal technique for distal ULMCA stenosis, risk of stent thrombosis, optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy, and the most appropriate strategy for post-procedure follow up. Multidisciplinary team approach remains essential to provide a balanced information to the patient and to offer the beast treatment option.

New era of left main coronary artery treatment strategy

For several decades of medical history, coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been regarded as the best treatment option for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease, considering lesion priority and its clinical consequences. Over the time, with remarkable advancements in techniques of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), supporting devices, and adjunctive pharmacologic therapy, PCI with DES implantation has appeared to be new and alternative option for optimal revascularization therapy for these patients. The available cumulative evidence suggests that the safety outcomes such as mortality or composite of death, myocardial infarction and stroke are similar among PCI and CABG for patients with LMCA disease, the only difference was the rate of repeat revascularization. Current evidence and ongoing large clinical trials may encourage interventional cardiologists to choose PCI with stenting as an alternative revascularization strategy for unprotected LMCA disease in future. Finally, this evidence will change the current clinical practice and the guideline of optimal revascularization strategy for unprotected LMCA disease.

Treatment of patients with left main coronary artery disease

OPINION STATEMENT

Considering lesion priority and its clinical consequences, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been a treatment of choice for revascularization in patients with significant left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease, However, with remarkable advancements in techniques of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), supporting devices, and adjunctive pharmacologic therapy, PCI with stenting has emerged to be a less invasive and feasible revascularization treatment for these patients. The cumulative evidence suggests that the safety outcomes such as mortality or composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke are similar among PCI and CABG, with the only difference being the rate of repeat revascularization. Based on these data, the current guideline of revascularization of LMCA disease has adopted an increasing off-label experience with stenting and clinical studies and been updated to partly approve PCI as a viable alternative (in level of class IIb) in selected patients. The choice of PCI or CABG for unprotected LMCA disease depends on several clinical and anatomic features, ensuring crucial patient selection to be a cornerstone for achieving favorable long-term outcomes. In patients with very complex anatomic features and concomitant diffuse multivessel disease, CABG is preferred so as to avoid procedural and future thrombotic risks and to provide more complete revascularization. By contrast, in patients with relatively simple LMCA disease, such as ostial/shaft LMCA disease, isolated LMCA disease (with or without one or two-vessel involvement), and LMCA disease with low SYNTAX score, PCI is an alternative, and in some cases a preferred, strategy to reduce surgical risks (eg, stroke and in-hospital events following major surgery). For the future, ongoing large clinical trials might also boost interventional cardiologists to select PCI with stenting as an alternative revascularization strategy for unprotected LMCA disease. This evidence will most likely change the current clinical practice and guidelines of optimal revascularization strategy for unprotected LMCA disease.

The impact of right coronary artery chronic total occlusion on clinical outcome of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main disease

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether right coronary artery chronic total occlusion (CTO) carries prognostic implications in patients undergoing drug-eluting stent-supported percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main disease (ULMD).

BACKGROUND

No data exist on the prognostic implication of CTO in patients undergoing PCI for ULMD.

METHODS

Prospective registry of consecutive patients undergoing PCI for ULMD. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. Primary endpoints were 6-month and long-term cardiac mortality.

RESULTS

From January 2004 to December 2009, 330 patients underwent PCI for ULMD. Of the 330 patients, 78 (24%) had CTO of the right coronary artery, 22 (7%) had CTO of the left anterior descending artery, and 16 (5%) had CTO of the left circumflex artery. Patients with right coronary artery CTO had a higher risk profile compared with patients without right coronary artery CTO. The 6-month mortality rate was 12.8% in patients with right coronary artery CTO, and 3.6% in patients without right coronary artery CTO (p < 0.002), and the 3-year cardiac survival rate was 76.4 ± 6.8% and 89.7 ± 2.7% (p < 0.003), respectively. By multivariable analysis, the only 2 independent predictors of 3-year cardiac mortality were right coronary artery CTO (hazard ratio: 2.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.02 to 4.50; p = 0.043) and EuroSCORE (hazard ratio: 1.03, 95% confidence interval: 1.02 to 1.05; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Right coronary artery CTO occurs frequently and is a significant predictor of mortality in patients with ULMD undergoing PCI.

Potential difficulty for accurate categorization of drug-eluting stent thrombosis without coronary angiography: unignorable involvement of the cases with new onset acute myocardial infarction occurred in target vessels

Very late stent thrombosis (VLST) is a major unresolved problem of drug-eluting stent (DES) implants. However, its actual incidence with respect to the distribution of DES-target vessel and accuracy of adjudicating stent thrombosis according to the ARC definition has not been yet adequately evaluated. We studied 720 patients who had completed over 1 year from elective DES implantation. In this cohort, we extracted patients who present acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n = 3, 0.4%). The timing of ACS events was 17, 19, and 24 months after DES implantation. At the time of presentation, VLST was strongly suspected as the initial diagnosis, however, coronary angiography (CAG) confirmed the different culprit lesion from DES and clearly no thrombus within the DES. According to ARC definition, three probable stent thromboses in this cohort before CAG, however, no stent thrombosis was confirmed after the CAG. Thus, no stent thrombosis was confirmed among this study population. In the very late phase after DES implantation, new onset ACS is not at all extraordinary occurrence in the target vessels of previous DES implantation. However, stent thrombosis is often assumed without angiographic confirmation. The clinical possibility that non-stent thrombosis is incidentally diagnosed with stent thrombosis without angiographic confirmation should be considered within the current accepted definition of stent thrombosis.

Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We undertook a meta-analysis to assess outcomes for drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis.

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty exists regarding the relative performance of DES versus BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary stenosis.

METHODS

Of a total of 838 studies, 44 met inclusion criteria (n = 10,342). The co-primary end points were mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: mortality, MI, TVR/TLR).

RESULTS

Event rates for DES and BMS were calculated at 6 to 12 months, at 2 years, and at 3 years. Crude event rates at 3 years were mortality (8.8% and 12.7%), MI (4.0% and 3.4%), TVR/TLR (8.0% and 16.4%), and MACE (21.4% and 31.6%). Nine studies were included in a comparative analysis (n = 5,081). At 6 to 12 months the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06 to 15.48; p = 0.97), MI 0.64 (95% CI: 0.19 to 2.17; p = 0.47), TVR/TLR 0.10 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.84; p = 0.01), and MACE 0.34 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.78; p = 0.01). At 2 years, the OR for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.42 (95% CI: 0.28 to 0.62; p < 0.01), MI 0.16 (95% CI: 0.01 to 3.53; p = 0.13), and MACE 0.31 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.66; p < 0.01). At 3 years, the OR for DES versus BMS were: mortality 0.70 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.92; p = 0.01), MI 0.49 (95% CI: 0.26 to 0.92; p = 0.03), TVR/TLR 0.46 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.69; p < 0.01), and MACE 0.78 (95% CI: 0.57 to 1.07; p = 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that DES is associated with favorable outcomes for mortality, MI, TVR/TLR, and MACE as compared to BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis.

Bare metal stent implantation in large-sized unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis in the drug-eluting stent era

Recently, drug-eluting stent (DES) has been recommended as the first choice in those patients who need stent implantation in unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis. However, the long-term safety and efficacy of this procedure is still controversial. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bare metal stent (BMS) implantation in ULMCA stenting in the DES era. We implanted BMS (mainly 4 mm-diameter) in large-sized ULMCA after December 2004 when DES became available. The results of BMS implantation (n = 19) were compared with those of DES implantation (n = 39). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding age, gender and coronary risk factors. Emergency procedures were more frequently performed in the BMS group than in the DES group (53% vs. 26%, p = 0.08). The initial mortality was 10.5% (n = 2) in the BMS group and 2.6% (n = 1) in the DES group (p = 0.25). There was no stent thrombosis, Q-wave myocardial infarction or emergent bypass surgery in either group during their hospital stay. The restenosis rate was 0% (n = 45) in both groups, and the target vessel revascularization rate was 5.9% in the BMS group (1/17) and 2.6% (1/38) in the DES group (p = 0.53). Therefore, there were no statistically significant differences in outcomes between the two study groups. These results indicate that BMS implantation in a large-sized ULMCA may be a safe and effective treatment even in the DES era.

Long-term follow-up after nonurgent percutaneous coronary intervention in unprotected left main coronary arteries

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term outcomes of the selected patients by the local Heart Team to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis and to compare patients considered at low surgical risk versus at high surgical risk for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

BACKGROUND

CABG is recommended in patients with ULMCA stenosis according to the AHA/ACC and ESC guidelines, and there are limited data on the long-term outcomes in patients selected by the local Heart Team to undergo PCI.

METHODS

Between 1996 and 2007, 227 patients underwent PCI for ULMCA stenosis based on decision of the local Heart Team and patient's and/or physician's preference. All patients were contacted at 1 year and in November 2008.

RESULTS

Long-term follow-up was up to 8 years with a mean of 3.9 +/- 2.6 years. Overall, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 14.8% at 1 year, 18.3% at 3 years, and 20.9% at 5 years with no events occurring thereafter. Patients considered at low surgical risk for CABG had a significantly lower incidence of cardiac death or MI compared to patients considered at high surgical risk at 8 years (1.4 vs. 16.8%; 1.4 vs. 14.8%, respectively); however, no significant difference was observed for cardiac death, MI, or TLR (18.6 vs. 24.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

PCI of ULMCA stenosis in patients selected by the Heart Team resulted in good long-term clinical outcomes with most events occurring within the 1st year. Patients considered at low surgical risk for CABG have a significantly better long-term survival than patients at high risk for surgery.

Percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis

Hemodynamically significant left main coronary artery stenosis (LMCA) is found in around 4% of diagnostic coronary angiograms and is known as unprotected LMCA stenosis if the left coronary artery and left circumflex artery has no previous patent grafts. Previous randomized studies have demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality when revascularization by coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery was undertaken compared with medical treatment. Therefore, current practice guidelines do not recommend percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for such a lesion because of the proven benefit of surgery and high rates of restenosis with the use of bare metal stents. However, with the advent of drug-eluting stents (DES), the long term outcomes of PCI with DES to treat unprotected LMCA stenoses have been acceptable. Therefore, apart from the current guidelines, PCI for treatment of unprotected LMCA stenosis is often undertaken in individuals who are at a very high risk of CABG or refuse to undergo a sternotomy. Future randomized studies comparing CABG vs PCI using DES for treatment of unprotected LMCA stenosis would be a great advance in clinical knowledge for the adoption of appropriate treatment.