Long-term outcome in patients treated with first- versus second-generation drug-eluting stents for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND

The study aim is to provide long-term clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary arteries (ULMCA) stenosis with the first-generation (1^st -gen) drug-eluting stents (DES) in comparison to 2^nd -gen DES, since this is largely unknown.

METHODS

Between May 2002, and December 2014, a consecutive series of 656 all-comer patients underwent a PCI for ULMCA stenosis at the Erasmus Medical Center. A total of 235 patients were treated with 1^st -gen DES, while a total of 421 patients were treated with 2^nd -gen DES.

RESULTS

Overall, the population consisted of 73% males and 58% presented with an acute coronary syndrome. Median follow-up time was 1,361 days (range from 0 to 5,031). At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of major adverse clinical events (the primary composite endpoint of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularization; MACE) did not differ between 1^st - and 2^nd -gen DES (36.8 vs. 38.6%, respectively, Log Rank p = .79, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.28 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.74]). No difference was found in the individual endpoints of all-cause mortality (29.5 vs. 29% respectively, p = .88, adjusted HR = 1.19 [95% CI, 0.84-1.68]), target vessel myocardial infarction (5.0 vs. 8.4%, p = 0.17, adjusted HR = 1.75 [95% CI, 0.78-3.96]) and target lesion revascularization (8.1 vs. 9.8%, p = .94, adjusted HR = 1.16 [95% CI, 0.59-2.29]) between the 1^st - and 2^nd -gen DES cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort of consecutive patients treated for ULMCA stenosis, no significant differences were found in the safety and efficacy of 1^st versus 2^nd -gen DES at 5 years follow-up.

Current Interventions for the Left Main Bifurcation

Contemporary clinical trials, registries, and meta-analyses, supported by recent results from the EXCEL (Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) and NOBLE (Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Stenosis) trials, have established percutaneous coronary intervention of left main coronary stenosis as a safe alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with low and intermediate SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) scores. As left main percutaneous coronary intervention gains acceptance, it is imperative to increase awareness for patient selection, risk scoring, intracoronary imaging, vessel preparation, and choice of stenting techniques that will optimize procedural and patient outcomes.

Long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus stent-PCI for unprotected left main disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has traditionally represented the standard of care for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. However, percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation (PCI) has more recently emerged as a valuable alternative. The long-time awaited results of the largest randomized trials on the long-term impact of PCI versus CABG in LMCA disease, the newly published NOBLE and EXCEL studies, revealed contrasting results. Thus, aim of the present meta-analysis was to review the most robust evidence from randomized comparisons of CABG versus PCI for revascularization of LMCA.

METHODS

Randomized studies comparing long-term clinical outcomes of CABG or Stent-PCI for the treatment of LMCA disease were searched for in PubMed, the Chochrane Library and Scopus electronic databases. A total of 5 randomized studies were selected, including 4499 patients.

RESULTS

No significant difference between CABG and PCI was found in the primary analysis on the composite endpoint of death, stroke and myocardial infarction (OR = 1·06 95% CI 0·80-1·40; p = 0·70). Similarly, no differences were observed between CABG and PCI for all-cause death (OR = 1·03 95% CI 0·81-1·32; p = 0·81). Although not statistically significant, a lower rate of stroke was registered in the PCI arm (OR = 0·86; p = 0·67), while a lower rate of myocardial infarction was found in the CABG arm (OR = 1·43; p = 0·17). On the contrary, a significantly higher rate of repeat revascularization was registered in the PCI arm (OR = 1·76 95% CI 1·45-2·13; p < 0·001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis, the most comprehensive and updated to date, including 5 randomized studies and 4499 patients, demonstrates no difference between Stent-PCI and CABG for the treatment of LMCA disease in the composite endpoint of death, stroke and myocardial infarction. Hence, a large part of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease can be managed equally well by means of both these revascularization strategies.

Design and rationale for a randomised comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in selected patients with left main coronary artery disease: the EXCEL trial

AIMS

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is the standard of care for revascularisation of patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). Recent studies have suggested that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) may provide comparable outcomes in selected patients with LMCAD without extensive CAD. We therefore designed a trial to investigate whether PCI with XIENCE cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES) would result in non-inferior or superior clinical outcomes to CABG in selected patients with LMCAD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial is a prospective, open-label, multicentre, international study of 1,900 randomised subjects. Patients with significant LMCAD with a SYNTAX score ≤32 and local Heart Team consensus that the subject is appropriate for revascularisation by both PCI and CABG are consented and randomised 1:1 to undergo PCI using CoCr-EES or CABG. All patients undergo follow-up for five years. The primary endpoint is the three-year composite rate of death, stroke or myocardial infarction, assessed at a median follow-up of at least three years (with at least two-year follow-up in all patients), powered for sequential non-inferiority and superiority testing.

CONCLUSIONS

The EXCEL study will define the contemporary roles of CABG and PCI using XIENCE CoCr-EES in patients with LMCAD disease with low and intermediate SYNTAX scores.

Long-term effectiveness and safety of the sirolimus-eluting BiOSS LIM® dedicated bifurcation stent in the treatment of distal left main stenosis: an international registry

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess prospectively the effectiveness and safety of a new version of the dedicated bifurcation BiOSS stent, the sirolimus-eluting BiOSS LIM, for the treatment of distal left main (LM) stenosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a prospective international registry which enrolled patients with NSTE-ACS or stable angina. Provisional T-stenting was the mandated strategy. The primary endpoint was the cumulative rate of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 12 months. Twelve-month quantitative coronary angiography endpoints included late lumen loss and percent diameter stenosis. A total of 74 patients with distal LM stenosis were enrolled. Seventy-three of the 74 patients (aged 67±9 years, 23% women, 20.3% NSTE-ACS, SYNTAX score 22.4±4.4) were successfully treated with the BiOSS LIM stent, with additional side branch placement of regular DES in 11 patients (14.9%). Periprocedural MI occurred in one (1.4%) patient. The 12-month MACE rate was 9.5% without cardiac death or definite stent thrombosis. TLR and MI rates were 6.8% (n=5) and 2.7% (n=2), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the BiOSS LIM dedicated bifurcation stent for the treatment of distal LM stenosis was feasible and safe, with promising long-term clinical effectiveness.

Safety and efficacy of lesion preparation with the AngioSculpt Scoring Balloon in left main interventions: the ALSTER Left Main registry

AIMS

Left main interventions require optimal initial results for good clinical outcome. Lesion preparation with the AngioSculpt Scoring Balloon (ASB) combined with the provisional T-stenting technique, if proven safe, might lead to better lumen gain and better clinical outcome. The aim of this registry was to investigate the safety and efficacy of the ASB as an option for lesion preparation in unprotected left main interventions (ULMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Out of the all-comers unprotected left main registry (ULMI ALSTER), 47 patients with elective ULMI fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this study. The endpoints were acute lumen gain and 12-month MACCE. The drop-out rate was 4%. The provisional T-stenting technique was used in 97% of distal ULMI. The interventions were grouped according to use of ASB with an in-house, historical no-ASB patient control group. Lumen gain was 1.63±0.12 mm in the ASB group (n=34) and 1.35±0.12 mm in the no-ASB group (n=8, p=0.26), respectively. The use of the ASB was safe. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) data for 21 patients showed numerically greater lumen area gain of 3.14±0.33 mm2 in the ASB group compared to 2.33±0.88 mm2 with the conventional technique. TLR/TVR was 6.6% overall. Twelve-month MACCE was 12.5% (4/32) for ASB and 15.4% (2/13) in the historical control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding ASB lesion preparation to the standard provisional T-stenting technique for ULMI is feasible and safe. Low TLR and TVR rates were observed. Lesion preparation led to a numerically larger lumen gain; the data allow valid power statistics to show this approach as leading to improved outcome in a possible randomised trial.

Second vs. First generation drug eluting stents in multiple vessel disease and left main stenosis: Two-year follow-up of the observational, prospective, controlled, and multicenter ERACI IV registry

OBJECTIVE

To compare second generation drug eluting stents (2DES) with first generation (1DES) for the treatment of patients (pts) with multiple coronary vessel disease (MVD).

BACKGROUND

Although 2DES improved safety and efficacy compared to 1DES, MVD remains a challenge for percutaneous coronary interventions.

METHODS

ERACI IV was a prospective, observational, and controlled study in pts with MVD including left main and treated with 2DES (Firebird 2, Microport). We included 225 pts in 15 sites from Argentina. Primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACCE) defined as death, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and unplanned revascularization; and to compare with 225 pts from ERACI III study (1DES). PCI strategy was planned to treat lesions ≥70% in vessels ≥ 2.00 mm, introducing a modified Syntax score (SS) where severe lesions in vessels < 2.0 mm and intermediate lesions were not scored.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics showed that compared to ERACI III, ERACI IV pts had higher number of diabetics (P = 0.02), previous revascularization (P = 0.007), unstable angina IIb/IIIc (P < 0.001) and three vessels/left main disease (P = 0.003). Modified SS was 22.2 ± 11. At 2 years of follow-up ERACI IV group had significantly lower incidence of death+ MI + CVA, (P = 0.01) and MACCE (P = 0.001). MACCE rate was similar in diabetics, (5.8%) and nondiabetics (7.0%). After performing a matched propensity score, MACCE remain significantly lower in ERACI IV (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

This registry showed that 2DES in MVD has a remarkable low incidence of MACCE in unadjusted and adjusted analysis. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Interventional Management of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Patient Selection and Technique Optimization

For many years, coronary artery bypass graft surgery has been the gold standard for revascularization of patients with left main disease; however, increasing evidence suggests that percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative or even preferred in select cases. This review will present clinical evidence examining the outcomes of drug-eluting stents compared to coronary artery bypass graft surgery for unprotected left main coronary artery disease and discuss the anatomic factors, patient variables, and clinical strategies that may dictate choice of revascularization modality for patients with left main disease. If percutaneous coronary intervention is selected to treat unprotected left main disease, meticulous technique is essential to optimize outcomes, including use of procedural physiology and imaging guidance, optimal stent and adjunct pharmacology use, and expert management of the distal bifurcation. Finally, issues of equipoise and uncertainty are identified, representing areas for future investigation.

Long-term forecasting and comparison of mortality in the Evaluation of the Xience Everolimus Eluting Stent vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial: prospective validation of the SYNTAX Score II

AIMS

To prospectively validate the SYNTAX Score II and forecast the outcomes of the randomized Evaluation of the Xience Everolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) Trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Evaluation of the Xience Everolimus Eluting Stent vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization is a prospective, randomized multicenter trial designed to establish the efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the everolimus-eluting stent compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in subjects with unprotected left-main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease and low-intermediate anatomical SYNTAX scores (<33). After completion of patient recruitment in EXCEL, the SYNTAX Score II was prospectively applied to predict 4-year mortality in the CABG and PCI arms. The 95% prediction intervals (PIs) for mortality were computed using simulation with bootstrap resampling (10 000 times). For the entire study cohort, the 4-year predicted mortalities were 8.5 and 10.5% in the PCI and CABG arms, respectively [odds ratios (OR) 0.79; 95% PI 0.43-1.50). In subjects with low (≤22) anatomical SYNTAX scores, the predicted OR was 0.69 (95% PI 0.34-1.45); in intermediate anatomical SYNTAX scores (23-32), the predicted OR was 0.93 (95% PI 0.53-1.62). Based on 4-year mortality predictions in EXCEL, clinical characteristics shifted long-term mortality predictions either in favour of PCI (older age, male gender and COPD) or CABG (younger age, lower creatinine clearance, female gender, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction).

CONCLUSION

The SYNTAX Score II indicates at least an equipoise for long-term mortality between CABG and PCI in subjects with ULMCA disease up to an intermediate anatomical complexity. Both anatomical and clinical characteristics had a clear impact on long-term mortality predictions and decision making between CABG and PCI.

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.