Practical based approach to left main bifurcation stenting

Comparison between provisional and dual systematic stenting approach for left main bifurcation disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Despite recent advancements, challenges persist in determining the optimal stenting strategy for LM bifurcation disease. Hence, this systematic review aims to compare single provisional and systematic dual stenting for managing LM bifurcation disease. A systematic search was performed until January 14, 2024. For the effect measure, risk ratios (RRs) was calculated. This study included 22 studies with 10776 participants. The all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality revealed comparable outcomes between provisional and dual-systematic stenting (RR 1.13, CI95 %: 0.87-1.47, p 0.36, I2 59 %; RR 1.16, CI95 %: 0.73-1.84, p 0.63, I2 80 %). In addition, MACE, MI, TLR, TVR, and in stent thrombosis also showed similar findings. Subgroup analysis revealed that cohort studies was the source of heterogeneity in all-cause mortality, stent thrombosis, and TLR. This meta-analysis suggests comparable outcomes between provisional and dual-systematic stenting in managing LM bifurcation disease. Further study is needed to validate the outcomes of novel techniques.

Drug-Coated Balloon vs. Drug-Eluting Stents for De Novo Unprotected Left Main Stem Disease: The SPARTAN-LMS Study

The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of patients treated with drug-coated balloons (DCBs) or second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) for de novo unprotected left main stem (LMS) disease. Previous studies comparing the treatment of LMS disease suggest that the mortality for DES PCI is not worse than CABG. There are limited data from studies investigating the treatment of de novo LMS disease with DCB angioplasty. We compared the all-cause and cardiac mortality of patients treated with paclitaxel DCB to those with second-generation DES for de novo LMS disease from July 2014 to November 2019. Data were analysed using Kaplan-Meier analyses and propensity-matched analyses. A total of 148 patients were treated with either a DCB or DES strategy. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality in the DCB group (19.5%) compared to the DES group (15.9%) (HR 1.42 [0.61-3.32], p = 0.42). Regarding cardiac mortality, 2 (4.9%) were recorded for the DCB group and 7 (6.5%) for the DES group (HR 1.21 [0.31-4.67], p = 0.786); for target vessel myocardial infarction, there were 0 (0%) for the DCB group and 7 (6.5%) for the DES group; and for target lesion revascularisation, there were 3 (7.3%) in the DCB group and 9 (8.3%) in the DES group (HR: 0.89 [0.24-3.30]). p = 0.86. These remained not significant after propensity score matching. We found no difference in the mortality outcomes with DCB angioplasty compared to second-generation DES, with a median follow-up of 33 months. DCB can therefore be regarded as a safe option in the treatment of LMS disease in suitable patients.

Simultaneous kissing stents in acute left main total occlusion complicated with cardiogenic shock

We present a case of acute left main bifurcation lesion presenting as very high-risk non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. Consequently, an immediate invasive strategy for this complex anatomical lesion in an unstable patient requires an emergent bailout strategy to restore the haemodynamic condition.Our case shows the simultaneous kissing stents technique in a patient with a true left main bifurcation lesion (Medina 1-1-1) as a strategy to overcome the compromised haemodynamics. This protocol would be an alternative life-saving strategy in an acute setting.

Focus on STENTYS® Xposition S Self-Apposing® stent: a review of available literature

Percutaneous coronary interventions are the primary revascularization strategy for the vast majority of patients with coronary artery disease. Nevertheless, challenging settings still limit optimal results, especially in case of significant tapering, bifurcations or primary angioplasty in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Stentys^® Self-Apposing^® stent was designed to improve strut apposition to the vessel wall and to adapt to difficult targets. The Xposition S is a sirolimus-eluting stent with a novel delivery system, to improve accurate positioning. Several studies compared the device with traditional balloon-expandable stents, showing better results in terms of malapposition reduction and a noninferiority in relation to procedural outcomes. Available data show good clinical results, but a direct comparison with balloon-expandable stents from large randomized trials is still lacking. Thus, the Stentys Xposition S can be an alternative to traditional stents in dedicated scenarios, but strong evidence from large randomized trials is needed to derive stronger recommendations.

The Comparison of Clinical Outcomes After Drug-Eluting Balloon and Drug-Eluting Stent Use for Left Main Bifurcation In-Stent Restenosis

Increasing evidence is available for the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in selected patients with unprotected left main (LM) bifurcation coronary lesions. However, little data have been reported on recurrent in-stent restenosis (ISR) for LM bifurcation lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a drug-eluting balloon (DEB) for LM bifurcation ISR compared with that of a drug-eluting stent (DES).Between December 2011 and December 2015, 104 patients who underwent PCI for unprotected LM bifurcation ISR were enrolled. We separated the patients into 2 groups: (1) those underwent PCI with further DEB and (2) those underwent PCI with further DES. Clinical outcomes were analyzed.Patients' average age was 67.14 ± 7.65 years, and the percentage of male patients was 76.0%. A total of 75 patients were enrolled in the DEB group, and another 29 patients were enrolled in the DES group. Similar target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) rate were noted for both groups. A significantly higher cardiovascular mortality rate was found in the DES group (10.7% versus 0%, P = 0.020), and a higher all-cause mortality rate was noted in the DES group (21.4% versus 6.8%, P = 0.067).It is feasible to use DEB for LM bifurcation ISR. When comparing DEB with DES, similar TLR rates were found, but lower recurrent MI and lower cardiovascular death were noted for DEB treatment.

Meta-analysis study comparing percutaneous coronary intervention/drug eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass surgery of unprotected left main coronary artery disease: Clinical outcomes during short-term versus long-term (> 1 year) follow-up

BACKGROUND

Results on the safety and long-term efficacy of drug-eluting stent placement in unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) compared with those of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) remain inconsistent across randomized clinical trials and recent meta-analysis studies. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and safety over short- and long-term follow-ups by conducting a meta-analysis of large pooled data from randomized controlled trials and up-to-date observational studies.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, and reference lists of related articles was performed for studies conducted in the drug-eluting stent era, to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with CABG in ULMCAD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, all-cause mortality, and revascularization after at least 1-year follow-up. In-hospital and 30-day clinical outcomes were considered secondary outcomes. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis of studies with ≥5 years follow-up was performed to test the sustainability of clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies were extracted with 21,832 patients (10,424 in PCI vs 11,408 in CABG). Pooled analysis demonstrated remarkable differences in long-term follow-up (≥1 year) MACCE (odds ratio [OR] 1.42, 95% CI 1.27-1.59), P < .00001), repeat revascularization (OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.41-3.73, P < .00001), and MI (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.14-1.53, P = .0002), favoring CABG over PCI. However, stroke risk was significantly lower in the PCI group. Subgroup analysis of studies with ≥5 years follow-up showed similar outcomes except for the noninferiority outcome of MACCE in the PCI arm. However, the PCI group proved good safety profile after a minimum of 30-day follow-up with lower MACCE outcome.

CONCLUSION

PCI for ULMCAD can be applied with attentiveness in carefully selected patients. MI and the need for revascularization remain drawbacks and areas of concern among previous studies. Nonetheless, it has been proven safe during short-term follow-up.