Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents for Left Anterior Descending or Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization

A Narrative Review of Revascularization in Chronic Coronary Syndrome/Disease: Concepts and Misconceptions

Ischemic heart disease represents a significant global burden of morbidity and mortality. While revascularization strategies are well defined in acute settings, there are uncertainties regarding chronic coronary artery disease treatment. Recent trials have raised doubts about the necessity of revascularization for "stable", chronic coronary syndromes or disease, leading to a shift towards a more conservative approach. However, the issue remains far from settled. In this narrative review, we offer a summary of the most pertinent evidence regarding revascularization for chronic coronary disease, while reflecting on less-often-discussed details of major clinical trials. The cumulative evidence available indicates that there can be a prognostic benefit from revascularization in chronic coronary syndrome patients, provided there is significant ischemia, as demonstrated by either imaging or coronary physiology. Trials that have effectively met this criterion consistently demonstrate a reduction in rates of spontaneous myocardial infarction, which holds both prognostic and clinical significance. The prognostic benefit of revascularization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction remains especially problematic, with a single contemporary trial favouring surgical revascularization. The very recent publication of a trial focused on revascularizing non-flow-limiting "vulnerable" plaques adds further complexity to the field. The ongoing debates surrounding revascularization in chronic coronary syndromes emphasize the importance of personalized strategies. Revascularization, added to the foundational pillar of medical therapy, should be considered, taking into account symptoms, patient preferences, coronary anatomy and physiology, ischemia tests and intra-coronary imaging.

Real-world long-term survival after non-emergent percutaneous coronary intervention to unprotected left main coronary artery - From the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) registry

BACKGROUND

Current evidence suggests that percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery disease (LMPCI) in selected patients is a safe alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting. However, real-world long-term survival data is limited.

METHODS

We analyzed 24,644 patients from the MIG (Melbourne Interventional Group) registry between 2005 and 2020. We compared baseline clinical and procedural characteristics, in-hospital and 30-day outcomes, and long-term survival between unprotected LMPCI and non-LMPCI among patients without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest.

RESULTS

Unprotected LMPCI patients (n = 185) were significantly older (mean age 72.0 vs. 64.6 years, p < 0.001), had higher prevalence of impaired ejection fraction (EF <50 %; 27.3 % vs. 14.9 %, p < 0.001) and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml/min/1.73m2 (40.9 % vs. 21.5 %, p < 0.001), and had greater use of intravascular ultrasound (21 % vs. 1 %, p < 0.001) and drug-eluting stents (p < 0.001). LMPCI was associated with longer hospital stay (4 days vs. 2 days, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in other in-hospital outcomes, 30-day mortality (0.6 % vs. 0.6 %, p = 0.90), and major adverse cardiac events (1.7 % vs. 3 %, p = 0.28). Although the unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival to 8 years was significantly less with LMPCI compared to non-LMPCI (p < 0.01), LMPCI was not a predictor of long-term survival up to 8 years after Cox regression analysis (HR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.40-1.13, p = 0.13).

CONCLUSION

In this study, non-emergent unprotected LMPCI was uncommonly performed, and IVUS was underutilized. Despite greater co-morbidities, LMPCI patients had comparable 30-day outcomes to non-LMPCI, and LMPCI was not an independent predictor of long-term mortality.

High Non-Cardiac Death Incidence Should Be a Limitation of Drug-Eluting Stents Implantation? Insights from Recent Randomized Data

Despite the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES) significantly improved the efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), particularly in a high-risk group of patients, the gap between PCI with his competitor’s coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and/or optimal medical treatment alone was not reduced. In this revision, we highlighted the fact that in recent years landmark randomized studies reported at mid and long-term follow-ups a high incidence of non-cardiac death, cancer incidence, or both in the DES group of patients. The overall incidence of non-cardiac death was significantly higher in the DES vs. the comparator arm: 5.5% and 3.8%, respectively, p = 0.000018, and non-cardiac death appears to be more divergent between DES vs. the comparator at the extended follow-up to expenses of the last one. One of these trials reported five times greater cancer incidence in the DES arm at late follow-up, 5% vs. 0.7% p < 0.0018. We review the potential reason for these unexpected findings, although we can discard that DES biology could be involved in it. Until all these issues are resolved, we propose that DES implantation should be tailored accorded patient age, life expectancy, and lesion complexity.

Utilization of Non-Drug-Eluting Devices for Inpatient Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States

There is a paucity of data on the contemporary use of non-drug-eluting devices (balloon angioplasty or bare-metal stents) in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States. We utilized the Nationwide Readmissions Database to identify patients hospitalized to undergo PCI with non-drug-eluting devices from 2016 to 2019. The main outcome of interest was the trends in utilization over the study years. Among 1,870,262 PCI procedures, 127,810 (6.8%) were performed with non-drug-eluting devices; 72% of these were in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (MI). The use of non-drug-eluting devices decreased throughout the study period from 12.9% of all PCI in the first quarter of 2016 to 3.4% in the last quarter of 2019 (p <0.001). Factors associated with their use included advanced age and high bleeding risk. Only a small percentage were used as a bridge to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (2%) and for treatment of in-stent restenosis (3%). The in-hospital mortality was 5.8% for the entire cohort and 6.6% when the indication for use was an acute MI. In patients presenting with an acute MI, reinfarction within 30 days was common and occurred in 18% of the patients. In conclusion, the use of non-drug-eluting devices in PCI in the United States decreased from 2016 to 2019. Factors associated with their use included old age and high bleeding risk. Due to suboptimal outcomes in patients currently being treated with non-drug-eluting devices, there remains an unmet clinical need for alternative treatment options.