Deferred Versus Performed Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Disease With Hemodynamic Significance

Deferral of left main coronary artery revascularization via IVUS or coronary physiology - Long-term outcomes from the SWEDEHEART registry

BACKGROUND

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guides deferral decision-making regarding the left main coronary artery (LMCA) and improves outcomes. Further studies regarding coronary physiology to guide revascularization in the LMCA are needed. Our aim was to evaluate the outcome of LMCA deferral using IVUS or coronary physiology via instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR).

METHODS

Between January 2014 and February 2022, patients undergoing evaluation with either IVUS or coronary physiology in the LMCA were included from the SWEDEHEART registry. Exclusion criteria were a minimum luminal area < 6 mm2, iFR ≤ 0.89, FFR ≤ 0.80, ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention of lesions in the LMCA, proximal left anterior descending artery, and proximal circumflex artery, planned elective revascularization, and planned valvular surgery. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. Kaplan-Meier event rates and multivariable Poisson regression were used for the statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Deferral of revascularization in the LMCA was performed in 1552 patients, 33.6 % with IVUS and 66.4 % with coronary physiology (iFR 11.3 % vs. FFR 55.0 %). The median follow-up time was 2.7 years. No significant difference was seen in MACE (IVUS 40.2 % vs. coronary physiology 35.5 %; adjusted RR: 1.18; 95 %CI: 0.97-1.44; p = 0.09). The results were consistent across all investigated subgroups. The rate of all-cause death was higher in the IVUS group (adjusted RR: 1.38; 95 %CI: 1.03-1.83; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Deferral of coronary revascularization in LMCA lesions using IVUS or coronary physiology did not differ in our combined endpoint. We observed a higher risk of all-cause death using IVUS.

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.

Percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main distal bifurcation lesions in elderly people

BACKGROUND

In the elderly people with unprotected left main distal bifurcation lesions (ULMD), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is often selected as first choice treatment strategy because of perioperative high risk of coronary artery bypass graft surgery due to their large number of comorbidities. Also, some recent papers reported that geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) is also strongly associated with clinical outcomes after interventional procedures in elderly patients.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed clinical outcomes after PCI for ULMD and the impact of GNRI in elderly patients.

METHODS

We identified 669 non dialysis patients treated with current generation drug-eluting stent for ULMD from MITO registry. We divided the patients to the following 2 groups; elderly group (n = 240, age ≥75) and young group (n = 429, age <75). Additionally, we could calculate GNRI and divided elderly group into 2 group based on the median value of the GNRI. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

All-cause mortality was significantly higher in elderly group [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.37; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.40-4.02; p = 0.001]. All-cause mortality was significantly higher in low GNRI elderly group compared to other 2 groups (Adjusted HR of elderly with low GNRI: 3.56, 95%CI (1.77-7.14), p < 0.001). Cardiovascular mortality was comparable between two groups. TLR rate was significantly lower in elderly group (adjusted HR 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.97; p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

The elderly had higher all-cause mortality after PCI for ULMD compared to young people. Especially, the elderly with low GNRI were extremely associated with poorer outcomes.

Physiological Assessment with iFR prior to FFR Measurement in Left Main Disease

Despite guideline-based recommendation of the interchangeable use of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularization decision-making, iFR/FFR could demonstrate different physiological or clinical outcomes in some specific patient or lesion subsets. Therefore, we sought to investigate the impact of difference between iFR and FFR-guided revascularization decision-making on clinical outcomes in patients with left main disease (LMD). In this international multicenter registry of LMD with physiological interrogation, we identified 275 patients in whom physiological assessment was performed with both iFR/FFR. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed for both iFR/FFR to predict MACE in respective patients in whom revascularization was deferred and performed. In 153 patients of revascularization deferral, MACE occurred in 17.0% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR to predict MACE were 0.88 (specificity:0.74; sensitivity:0.65) and 0.76 (specificity:0.81; sensitivity:0.46), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher for iFR than FFR (0.74; 95%CI 0.62-0.85 vs. 0.62; 95%CI 0.48-0.75; p = 0.012). In 122 patients of coronary revascularization, MACE occurred in 13.1% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR were 0.92 (specificity:0.93; sensitivity:0.25) and 0.81 (specificity:0.047; sensitivity:1.00), respectively. The AUCs were not significantly different between iFR and FFR (0.57; 95%CI 0.40-0.73 vs. 0.46; 95%CI 0.31-0.61; p = 0.43). While neither baseline iFR nor FFR was predictive of MACE in patients in whom revascularization was performed, iFR-guided deferral seemed to be safer than FFR-guided deferral.