Left Main Stenting in Comparison With Surgical Revascularization

Late post-operative cardiogenic shock from left main coronary compression in tetralogy of Fallot with absent pulmonary valve: a case report

Background

Extrinsic left main coronary artery (LMCA) compression is well described in patients with severe pulmonary dilatation secondary to atrial septal defect, idiopathic pulmonary artery hypertension, and eisenmengerized patent ductus arteriosus. An inferiorly displaced origin of LMCA closer to the left coronary sinus and a dilated pulmonary artery (PA) trunk twice as much as aortic trunk increases risk of extrinsic compression. Such patients are prone to left ventricular ischaemia, malignant ventricular arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death.

Case summary

A 20-year-old girl presented with gradually worsening exertional dyspnoea for the last 5 years was diagnosed to have tetralogy of Fallot with absent pulmonary valve (TOF-APV). After undergoing intra-cardiac repair with bioprosthetic pulmonary valve implantation, she developed a broad complex right bundle branch block with right precordial Q waves (qRBBB), new-onset left ventricular dysfunction, acute decompensated heart failure, and elevated serum cardiac enzymes. Coronary angiogram and intravascular ultrasound examination showed a critically narrowed slit-like LMCA ostium. Percutaneous stenting of LMCA saw resolution of qRBBB and improvement in left ventricle function, after which patient stabilized and could be weaned off ventilatory support.

Discussion

Left main coronary artery compression after surgical pulmonary valve replacement in TOF-APV occurring few days after the operation may pose diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Exact mechanism for post-operative compression is not known. It can be hypothesized that the ionotropic agents used in post-operative period, or change in the geometric relationships of pulmonary artery and LMCA due to pulmonary valve implantation, brought out the compression. A case for prophylactic PA size reduction can be made to avoid the possibility of LMCA compression.

The benefit of early acupuncture within 7 days for neurological outcomes in ischemic stroke patients after cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Stroke is a critical complication of cardiac surgery that results in increased mortality and morbidity. Limited treatment options are available for patients with severe neurological deficits, such as impaired consciousness. Acupuncture is a well-known integrative management method for stroke patients. However, there are no extensive reports discussing the benefit of acupuncture in stroke patients after cardiac surgery. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the role of acupuncture in the neurological recovery of these patients and to identify the factors that provide greater benefit.

METHODS

This self-controlled case series utilized inpatient data from stroke patients after cardiac surgery who received acupuncture in a single center from 2013 to 2019. The primary outcomes included the Glasgow Coma Scale, muscle strength grading scale, and Barthel Index. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the neurological differences between pre-acupuncture and post-acupuncture.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients who met the criteria showed significant improvement of the severity of neurological impairment, including the Glasgow Coma Scale, muscle strength grading scale, and Barthel Index (p < 0.05). The group that underwent aortic dissection repair and the group that started acupuncture within 7 days after stroke showed greater improvement (p < 0.01). No adverse events were reported. Three patients with profound neurological impairment who received acupuncture intervention were described.

CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture has a potential benefit in improving neurological impairment and reducing mortality in stroke patients after cardiac surgery, especially within 7 days of the event. Further larger prospective studies with control groups are needed to provide convincing evidence.

Long-term health outcomes of young patients with low-complexity coronary disease: a weighted analysis according to revascularization strategy

OBJECTIVES

Age is an important factor weighing on revascularization decisions. We analysed long-term health outcomes of young patients with low-complexity coronary anatomy suitable for both coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), according to revascularization strategy.

METHODS

Patients 60 years old or less, undergoing invasive coronary angiography between January 2007 and December 2015, presenting with proximal left anterior descending artery involvement, left main or multivessel disease and a SYNTAX Score ≤22 were retrospectively selected. An inverse probability of treatment weight methodology generated a pseudopopulation with well-balanced characteristics, which was used to estimate the average treatment effect between PCI (n = 374) and CABG (n = 173).

RESULTS

Mean age was 53 ± 7 years old, 27% had diabetes mellitus and 48% presented with an acute coronary syndrome. Mean SYNTAX score was 13.6 ± 4.9 and 68% underwent PCI as index revascularization strategy. In the weighed population, the adjusted hazard of the primary end-point of all-cause death at total follow-up (median 9.3 years; interquartile range 6.9-11.7) was 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.19-0.7) for CABG vs PCI (incidence rate 5.8 vs 14.0 deaths/1000-person-years). Accounting for death as competing risk, the cumulative hazard of new revascularization (sub-distribution hazard ratio 0.72; 95% confidence interval 0.32-1.25) and any cause hospital readmission (sub-distribution hazard ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval 0.41-1.07) were lower in CABG patients, as opposed to death/stroke rates at 30 days which were higher with CABG (0.3% vs 1.7%; risk ratio = 5.84).

CONCLUSIONS

In this quasi-experimental analysis of young patients with coronary artery disease and an equivalent indication for both PCI and CABG, long-term health outcomes were favourably associated with CABG, as compared to PCI. These observations support the need for dedicated randomized trials with longer follow-up in order to better inform lifetime treatment options.

The effect of treatment timing on repeat revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease

Objectives

In patients with stable ischemic heart disease, there is no evidence for the effect of revascularization treatment timing on the need for repeat procedures. We aimed to determine if repeat revascularizations differed among patients who received coronary artery bypass graft surgery after the time recommended by physicians compared with those who had timely percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods

We identified 25,520 British Columbia residents 60 years or older who underwent first-time nonemergency revascularization for angiographically proven, stable left main or multivessel ischemic heart disease between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2016. We estimated unadjusted and adjusted cumulative incidence functions for repeat revascularization, in the presence of death as a competing risk, after index revascularization or last staged percutaneous coronary intervention for patients undergoing delayed coronary artery bypass grafting compared with timely percutaneous coronary intervention.

Results

After adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weights, at 3 years, patients who underwent delayed coronary artery bypass grafting had a statistically significant lower cumulative incidence of a repeat revascularization compared with patients who received timely percutaneous coronary intervention (4.84% delayed coronary artery bypass grafting, 12.32% timely percutaneous coronary intervention; subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.16, 95% CI, 0.04-0.65).

Conclusions

Patients who undergo delayed coronary artery bypass grafting have a lower cumulative incidence of repeat revascularization than patients who undergo timely percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients who want to wait to receive coronary artery bypass grafting will see the benefit of lower repeat revascularization over percutaneous coronary intervention unaffected by a delay in treatment.

Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on 10-year mortality in the SYNTAX trial

BACKGROUNDS

The impact of reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on very long-term prognosis following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) has been debated. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of LVEF at baseline on 10-year mortality in the SYNTAX trial.

METHODS

Patients (n = 1800) were categorized into three sub-groups: reduced (rEF ≤ 40 %), mildly reduced (mrEF 41-49 %), and preserved LVEF (pEF ≥ 50 %). The SYNTAX score 2020 (SS-2020) was applied in patients with LVEF<50 % and ≥ 50 %.

RESULTS

Ten-year mortalities were 44.0 %, 31.8 %, and 22.6 % (P < 0.001) in patients with rEF (n = 168), mrEF (n = 179), and pEF (n = 1453). Although no significant differences were observed, the mortality with PCI was higher than with CABG in patients with rEF (52.9 % vs 39.6 %, P = 0.054) and mrEF (36.0 % vs. 28.6 %, P = 0.273), and comparable in pEF (23.9 % vs. 22.2 %, P = 0.275). Calibration and discrimination of the SS-2020 in patients with LVEF<50 % were poor, whilst they were reasonable in those with LVEF≥50 %. The proportion of patients eligible for PCI who had a predicted equipoise in mortality with CABG was estimated to be 57.5 % in patients with LVEF≥50 %. CABG was safer than PCI in 62.2 % of patients with LVEF<50 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced LVEF was associated with an increased risk of 10-year mortality in patients revascularized either surgically or percutaneously. Compared to PCI, CABG was safe revascularization in patients with LVEF≤40 %. In patients with LVEF≥50 % individualized 10-year all-cause mortality predicted by SS-2020 was helpful in decision-making whilst the predictivity in patients with LVEF<50 % was poor.

Effect of sequential release of sirolimus and rosuvastatin using silk fibroin microneedle to prevent intimal hyperplasia

Intimal hyperplasia (IH) is a major cause of vascular restenosis after bypass surgery, which progresses as a series of processes from the acute to chronic stage in response to endothelial damage during bypass grafting. A strategic localized drug delivery system that reflects the pathophysiology of IH and minimizes systemic side effects is necessary. In this study, the sequential release of sirolimus, a mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, and statin, an HMG-COA inhibitor, was realized as a silk fibroin-based microneedle device in vivo. The released sirolimus in the acute stage reduced neointima (NI) and vascular fibrosis through mTOR inhibition. Furthermore, rosuvastatin, which was continuously released from the acute to chronic stage, reduced vascular stiffness and apoptosis through the inactivation of Yes-associated protein (YAP). The sequential release of sirolimus and rosuvastatin confirmed the synergistic treatment effects on vascular inflammation, VSMC proliferation, and ECM degradation remodeling through the inhibition of transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta/NF-κB pathway. These results demonstrate the therapeutic effect on preventing restenosis with sufficient vascular elasticity and significantly reduced IH in response to endothelial damage. Therefore, this study suggests a promising strategy for treating coronary artery disease through localized drug delivery of customized drug combinations.

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.

Revascularization Options for Left Main Disease: What Clinicians Need to Know

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Left main disease represents the highest-risk lesion subset of coronary artery disease and is associated with adverse cardiovascular events. Accordingly, we aim to understand how the significance of left main disease is assessed by different modalities, followed by a review of management options in current era.

RECENT FINDINGS

Invasive coronary angiogram remains the gold standard for assessment of left main disease, but intracoronary imaging or physiological testing is indicated for angiographically equivocal disease. Revascularization by either coronary artery bypass surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention is strongly recommended, which have been compared by six randomized trials, as well as recent meta-analyses. Surgical revascularization remains the preferred mode of revascularization, especially in patients with high lesion complexity and left ventricular dysfunction. Randomized studies are needed to understand if current-generation stents with the use of intracoronary imaging and improved medical therapy could match outcomes with surgical revascularization.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Revascularization of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Owing to a large-jeopardized myocardium, left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) represents the substantial high-risk anatomical subset of obstructive coronary artery disease. For several decades, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the "gold standard" treatment for LMCAD. Along with advances in CABG, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has also dramatically evolved over time in conjunction with advances in the stent or device technology, adjunct pharmacotherapy, accumulated experiences, and practice changes, establishing its position as a safe, reasonable treatment option for such a complex disease. Until recently, several randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and observational registries comparing PCI and CABG for LMCAD have shown comparable long-term survival with tradeoffs between early and late risk-benefit of each treatment. Despite this, there are still several unmet issues for revascularization strategy and management for LMCAD. This review article summarized updated knowledge on evolution and clinical evidence on the treatment of LMCAD, with a focus on the comparison of state-of-the-art PCI with CABG.

Ten-year outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel or left main coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Short-term and long-term comparative outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for multivessel coronary artery (MVCA) or left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease are highly debated.

GOALS

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the difference between PCI and CABG for the treatment of patients with MVCA or LMCA in long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Literatures were searched in PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2021, including RCTs and observational studies (OSs). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 10 years follow-up, and the secondary outcomes included cardiac mortality, repeated revascularization, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 5 RCTs reporting data from 3013 participants and 4 OSs of 5608 participants were included for analysis. There was no significant difference between PCI and CABG in all-cause mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.19]), whereas PCI was associated with higher cardiac mortality (OR 0.76 [95% CI 0.65 to 0.90]) and repeated revascularization rate comparing to CABG (OR 1.77 [95% CI 1.08 to 2.89]; I² = 94.61%). The difference between PCI and CABG in repeated revascularization in either RCTs or OSs, in myocardial infarction in either RCTs or OSs were not significant. In OSs, stroke rate in PCI group was lower than those in CABG, but not in RCTs. There was a significant increase of stroke rate in CABG comparing to PCI (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.80]; I² = 0.00%). No significant difference between PCI and CABG in myocardial infarction was not observed (OR 0.92 [95% CI 0.64 to 1.31]; I² = 57.84%).

CONCLUSION

Evidence from our study and prior studies suggested the superiority of CABG over PCI in improving 5- but not 10-year survival among patients with MVCA. In the contrast, there was no significant difference between CABG and PCI for treating patients with LMCA in either 5- or 10-year survival rate. More long-term trials are needed to better define differences of outcome between 2 techniques.

Difference in spontaneous myocardial infarction and mortality in percutaneous versus surgical revascularization trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

It has been hypothesized that the survival benefit of coronary artery bypass (CABG) compared with percutaneous interventions (PCI) may be associated with the reduction in spontaneous myocardial infarction (SMI) achieved by surgery. This, however, has not been formally investigated. The present meta-analysis aims to evaluate the association between the difference in SMI and in survival in PCI versus CABG randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A systematic search was performed to identify all RCTs comparing PCI with CABG for the treatment of coronary artery disease and reporting SMI outcomes. Generic inverse variance method was used to pool outcomes as natural logarithms of the incident rate ratios across studies. Subgroup analysis and interaction test were used to compare the difference of the primary outcome among trials that did and did not report a significant reduction in SMI- in the patients treated by CABG. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcome was SMI.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. A statistically significant difference in SMI in favor of CABG was found in 7 of the included trials (35%). Overall, PCI was associated with significantly greater all-cause mortality (incident rate ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.28). At subgroup analysis, a significant difference in survival in favor of CABG was seen only in trials that reported a significant reduction in SMI in the surgical arm (P for interaction 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In the published PCI versus CABG trials, the reduction in all-cause mortality in the surgical arm is associated with the protective effect of CABG against SMI.

Long-term effects of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery surgery in elderly with multi-vessel coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

The most prevalent illness among the elderly is coronary artery disease (CAD), and most of this population present with multi-vessel CAD which constitutes a common management difficulty among elderly people. This study aimed to compare long-term consequences of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) revascularization in elderly patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease.

RESULTS

This retrospective study evaluated 100 elderly patients with multi-vessel CAD divided into two groups, group 1 the PCI group and group 2 the CABG group. The main findings of the study showed that CABG group had a longer hospital stay than the PCI group (8.16 vs. 2.02 days; P < 0.001). A considerably higher mean residual SYNTAX score was observed in the PCI group than CABG group which was 1.15 and 0.2, respectively (p-value < 0.001). The in-hospital major adverse cardiac events rate (MACE) in both groups was not statistically significant. Regarding the in-hospital mortality rate, although it was higher in the CABG group (6%) versus 2% in the PCI group, yet it was not statistically significant. The long-term MACE in this study revealed that 12.2% of PCI patients had heart failure compared to 6.4% in the CABG group, which was statistically insignificant. In the long-term follow-up, the revascularization rate of CABG group was higher than the PCI group; however, it was statistically insignificant. CABG group had a higher rate of stroke than PCI group being 4.3% and 2%, respectively; yet this difference was not statistically considerable. The long-term mortality rate among the PCI and CABG group was 10.2% and 4.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients with multi-vessel CAD, PCI with stenting, and CABG were statistically equivalent in long-term death and MI rates, stroke, repeat revascularization. A non-statistically notable distinction between the two groups as regards MACE, composite of death or MI, and all-cause mortality was found. This may have implication on choice of management strategy among elderly patients with multi-vessel CAD.

Quantitative Flow Ratio Is Related to Anatomic Left Main Stem Lesion Parameters as Assessed by Intravascular Imaging

Introduction: Previously, an association between anatomic left main stem (LMS) lesion parameters, as described by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and fractional flow reserve (FFR), was shown. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel, promising technique which can assess functional stenosis relevance based only on angiography. However, as little is known about the relationship between anatomic LMS parameters and QFR, it was thus investigated in this study. Methods: In 53 patients with LMS disease, we tested the association between anatomic assessment using OCT (n = 28) or IVUS (n = 25) on the one hand and functional assessment as determined by QFR on the other hand. LMS-QFR was measured using a dedicated approach, averaging QFR over left anterior descending (LAD) and circumflex (LCX) and manually limiting segment of interest to LMS. Results: The minimal luminal area of the LMS (LMS-MLA) as measured by intravascular imaging showed a consistent correlation with QFR (R = 0.61, p < 0.001). QFR could predict a LMS-MLA < 6 mm2 with very good diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.919) and a LMS-MLA < 4.5 mm2 with good accuracy (AUC 0.798). Similar results were obtained for other stenosis parameters. Conclusions: QFR might be a valuable tool to assess LMS disease. Further studies focusing on patient outcomes are needed to further validate the effectiveness of this approach.

Left Main Disease

Traditionally, the treatment of left main coronary artery disease is recommended coronary artery bypass grafting because of its superior long-term outcomes compared with medical treatment and plain old balloon angioplasty. However, improvement of percutaneous coronary intervention technique and introduction of drug-eluting stent led to change of treatment strategy of left main coronary artery disease through cumulative data for revascularization that based on clinical evidence.

Left Main Coronary Artery Disease-Current Management and Future Perspectives

Due to its anatomical features, patients with an obstruction of the left main coronary artery (LMCA) have an increased risk of death. For years, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered as a gold standard for revascularization. However, notable advancements in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) led to its acknowledgement as an important treatment alternative, especially in patients with low and intermediate anatomical complexity. Although recent years brought several random clinical trials that investigated the safety and efficacy of the percutaneous approach in LMCA, there are still uncertainties regarding optimal revascularization strategies. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment methods of LMCA disease, focusing on percutaneous methods.

Unprotected Left Main Revascularization in the Setting of Non-Coronary Atherosclerosis: Gulf Left Main Registry

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in revascularization of left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease has been evaluated in previous studies. However, there has been minimal study of the relationship between co-existing non-coronary atherosclerosis (NCA) and LMCA disease revascularization. We aim to examine this relationship.

METHODS

The Gulf-LM study is a retrospective analysis of unprotected LMCA revascularization cases undergoing PCI with second generation drug-eluting stent versus CABG across 14 centers within 3 Gulf countries between January 2015 and December 2019. A total of 2138 patients were included, 381 with coexisting NCA and 1757 without. Outcomes examined included major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), cardiac and non-cardiac death, and all bleeding.

RESULTS

In patients with NCA, preexisting myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure were more common, with PCI being the most common revascularization strategy. A statistically significant reduction in in-hospital MACCE and all bleeding was noted in patients with NCA undergoing PCI as compared to CABG. At a median follow-up of 15 months, MACCE and major bleeding outcomes continued to favor the PCI group, though no such difference was identified between revascularization strategies in patients without NCA.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter retrospective study of patients with and without NCA who require revascularization (PCI and CABG) for unprotected LMCA disease, PCI demonstrated a better clinical outcome in MACCE both in-hospital and during the short-term follow-up in patients with NCA. However, no such difference was observed in patients without NCA.

Meta-Analysis of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Narrowing

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) have reported conflicting results. We performed a systematic review up to May 23, 2021, and 1-stage reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to compare outcomes between both groups. The primary outcome was 10-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned revascularization at 5 years. We performed individual patient data meta-analysis using published Kaplan-Meier curves to provide individual data points in coordinates and numbers at risk were used to increase the calibration accuracy of the reconstructed data. Shared frailty model or, when proportionality assumptions were not met, a restricted mean survival time model were fitted to compare outcomes between treatment groups. Of 583 articles retrieved, 5 RCTs were included. A total of 4,595 patients from these 5 RCTs were randomly assigned to PCI (n = 2,297) or CABG (n = 2,298). The cumulative 10-year all-cause mortality after PCI and CABG was 12.0% versus 10.6%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.093, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.925 to 1.292; p = 0.296). PCI conferred similar time-to-MI (restricted mean survival time ratio 1.006, 95% CI 0.992 to 1.021, p=0.391) and stroke (restricted mean survival time ratio 1.005, 95% CI 0.998 to 1.013, p = 0.133) at 5 years. Unplanned revascularization was more frequent after PCI than CABG (HR 1.807, 95% CI 1.524 to 2.144, p <0.001) at 5 years. This meta-analysis using reconstructed participant-level time-to-event data showed no statistically significant difference in cumulative 10-year all-cause mortality between PCI versus CABG in the treatment of LMCAD.

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft in patients with STEMI and unprotected left main stem disease: A systematic review & meta-analysis

Introduction

Owing to its large area of supply, left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) has the highest mortality rate among coronary artery lesions, resulting in debate about its optimal revascularization technique. This meta-analysis compares percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of LMCAD.

Method

MEDLINE, TRIP, and Cochrane Central databases were queried from their inception until 25 April 2021, to determine MACCE (major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events), all-cause mortality, repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke rates post-revascularization for different follow-ups. 7 RCTs and 50 observational studies having 56,701 patients were included. A random-effects model was used with effect sizes calculated as odds ratios (odds ratio, OR).

Results

In the short term (1 year), PCI had significantly higher repeat revascularizations (OR = 3.58, 95% CI 2.47-5.20; p < 0.00001), but lower strokes (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81; p = 0.002). In the intermediate term (2-5 years), PCI had significantly higher rates of repeat revascularizations (OR = 3.47, 95% CI 2.72-4.44; p < 0.00001) and MI (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.17-1.64; p = 0.0002), but significantly lower strokes (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.42-0.70; p < 0.0001). PCI also had significantly higher repeat revascularizations (OR = 2.58, 95% CI 1.89-3.52; p < 0.00001) in the long term (≥5 years), while in the very long term (≥10 years), PCI had significantly lower all-cause mortalities (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.96; p = 0.02).

Conclusion

PCI was safer than CABG for patients with stroke for most follow-ups, while CABG was associated with lower repeat revascularizations. However, further research is required to determine PCI's safety over CABG for reducing post-surgery MI.

Outcomes of Left Main Revascularization after Percutaneous Intervention or Bypass Surgery

Background

This study is aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes of unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD) treatment with contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in a "real-world" population.

Methods and Results

Overall, 558 consecutive patients with ULMCAD (mean age 71 ± 9 years, male gender 81%) undergoing PCI or CABG were compared. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke. Diabetes was present in 29% and acute coronary syndrome in 56%; mean EuroSCORE was 11 ± 8. High coronary complexity (SYNTAX score >32) was present in 50% of patients. The primary composite endpoint was similar after PCI and CABG up to 4 years (15.5 ± 3.1% vs. 17.1 ± 2.6%; p=0.585). The primary end point was also comparable in a two propensity score matched cohorts. Ischemia-driven revascularization was more frequently needed in PCI than in CABG (5.5% vs. 1.5%; p=0.010). By multivariate analysis, diabetes mellitus (HR 2.00; p=0.003) and EuroSCORE (HR 3.71; p < 0.001) were the only independent predictors associated with long-term outcome.

Conclusions

In a "real-world" population with ULMCAD, a contemporary revascularization strategy by PCI or CABG showed similar long-term clinical outcome regardless of the coronary complexity.

Long-Term Outcomes of Unprotected Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Centers Without Onsite Cardiac Surgery

Unprotected left main (LM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at centers without onsite cardiac surgery remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the effect of onsite cardiac surgery on short-term and long-term outcomes in patients who had unprotected LM PCI. We analyzed Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry data on consecutive patients who had unprotected LM PCI at cardiac surgical centers (SCs) and non-SCs (NSCs) between January 2014 to December 2018. Compared with the SC group (n = 594, 81%), the NSC group (n = 136) were younger (69 vs 72 years) and presented with more ST-elevation myocardial infarction (35% vs 16%) and cardiogenic shock (25% vs 15%), with higher rates of preprocedural intubation (17% vs 11%) and mechanical circulatory support (20% vs 9.3%), all p <0.01. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality (23% vs 11.4%), and 30-day major adverse cardiac events (composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or unplanned revascularization) (26% vs 16%) were higher in NSC patients, all p <0.01. However, following multivariable adjustment, SC was neither a predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 to 1.43, p = 0.31), 30-day mortality (odds ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.48, p = 0.35) nor long-term survival at 60 months (hazard ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.27, p = 0.51). Propensity score analysis confirmed the neutral effect of onsite cardiac surgery on long-term survival (hazard ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50, p = 0.97). In conclusion, patients who underwent unprotected LM PCI at NSCs presented with greater acuity of illness. Despite this, the availability of onsite cardiac surgical support was not associated with in-hospital, 30-day, or long-term outcomes underscoring the safety of LM PCI in NSCs.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Present Status and Future Perspectives

For several decades, coronary artery bypass grafting has been regarded as the standard choice of revascularization for significant left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. However, in conjunction with remarkable advancement of device technology and adjunctive pharmacology, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) offers a more expeditious approach with rapid recovery and is a safe and effective alternative in appropriately selected patients with LMCA disease. Several landmark randomized clinical trials showed that PCI with drug-eluting stents for LMCA disease is a safe option with similar long-term survival rates to coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, especially in those with low and intermediate anatomic risk. Although it is expected that the updated evidence from recent randomized clinical trials will determine the next guidelines for the foreseeable future, there are still unresolved and unmet issues of LMCA revascularization and PCI strategy. This paper provides a comprehensive review on the evolution and an update on the management of LMCA disease.

Trends in Clinical Practice and Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery

Background

The use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat unprotected left main coronary artery disease has expanded rapidly in the past decade. We aimed to describe nationwide trends in clinical practice and outcomes after PCI for left main coronary artery disease.

Methods and Results

Patients (n=4085) enrolled in the SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry) as undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease from 2005 to 2017 were included. A count regression model was used to analyze time‐related differences in procedural characteristics. The 3‐year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event rate defined as death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization was calculated with the Kaplan‐Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard model. The number of annual PCI procedures grew from 121 in 2005 to 589 in 2017 (389%). The increase was greater for men (479%) and individuals with diabetes (500%). Periprocedural complications occurred in 7.9%, decreasing from 10% to 6% during the study period. A major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event occurred in 35.7% of patients, falling from 45.6% to 23.9% (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41–0.78; P=0.001). Radial artery access rose from 21.5% to 74.2% and intracoronary diagnostic procedures from 14.0% to 53.3%. Use of bare‐metal stents and first‐generation drug‐eluting stents fell from 19.0% and 71.9%, respectively, to 0, with use of new‐generation drug‐eluting stents increasing to 95.2%.

Conclusions

Recent changes in clinical practice relating to PCI for left main coronary artery disease are characterized by a 4‐fold rise in procedures conducted, increased use of evidence‐based adjunctive treatment strategies, intracoronary diagnostics, newer stents, and more favorable outcomes.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

PCI or CABG for Left Main Disease: Does Disease Location Matter?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review attempts to specifically assess impact of disease location in left main artery on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The management of left main disease, once thought to be the sole province of cardiothoracic surgeon, has recently undergone a reappraisal by the cardiovascular medicine community. For many years, societal guideline recommendations advised bypass surgery as the "de rigeur" method of revascularization for unprotected left main disease. However, recent studies suggest that coronary intervention, especially with advances in drug-eluting stent technology, has mounted a serious challenge to surgical bypass in treatment of this disease. Although overall mortality rates are comparable for percutaneous coronary intervention and bypass surgery, left main disease location does influence long-term outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention more than bypass surgery. A patient- and lesion-centered approach to treatment of this disease may provide optimal outcomes.

The Contemporary Management of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

The 'gold standard' in the management of left main coronary artery disease has historically been coronary artery bypass surgery. Recent innovations in drug-eluting stent technology coupled with the increasing utility of physiology and imaging guidance for procedures have led to an evolving role of percutaneous coronary intervention in left main disease of low and intermediate anatomical complexity. This revascularization modality carries the clear advantage of being less invasive and significantly reduced recovery times. This practice is currently supported by international guidelines, however, it remains a controversial topic in the field of interventional cardiology, and the long-term outcomes of a percutaneous strategy have been questioned. This review describes the current evidence base for the assessment and choice of intervention in left main coronary artery disease. The percutaneous revascularization techniques and use of imaging to optimize procedures and improve clinical outcomes have been discussed.

Towards a common pathway for the treatment of left main disease: contemporary evidence and future directions: Left main disease treatment

There is increasing evidence to support percutaneous treatment of left main (LM) disease. Due to its major clinical impact, any procedure in the left main should be meticulously planned and performed. In this review, we aim to integrate the available evidence into a common treatment pathway, starting with understanding the distinct anatomical features of the left main. A three-level decision-making process is presented. First, in instances of angiographic ambiguity, intravascular ultrasound and fractional flow reserve can be used to decide if revascularisation could be deferred. Second, if revascularisation is indicated, the risks and benefits of percutaneous versus surgical procedures should be evaluated. Third, if percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is chosen, the operator should decide between the provisional single-stent versus upfront two-stent strategies. Regardless of the PCI technique selected, it should be performed according to the recommendations of a stepwise procedure utilising proximal optimisation (POT) after each instance of crossover stenting and kissing balloon inflation (KBI) where necessary. In addition to the recognised quality markers such as POT and KBI, we discuss the clinical relevance of the operator's LM PCI experience and the intracoronary imaging guidance when treating patients with left main disease.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Vs Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Disease: G-LM Registry

Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) has been the standard of care for revascularization for patients with obstructive unprotected left main coronary disease (ULMCA). There have been multiple randomized and registry data demonstrating the technical and clinical efficacy of PCI in certain patients with ULMCA. The purpose of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of ULMCA PCI as compared to CABG in patients requiring revascularization in three Gulf countries. All ULMCA cases treated by PCI with DES versus CABG were retrospectively identified from 14 centers in 3 Arab Gulf countries (KSA, UAE, and Bahrain) from January 2015 to December 2019. In total, 2138 patients were included: 1222 were treated with PCI versus 916 with CABG. Patients undergoing PCI were older, and had higher comorbidities and mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE). Aborted cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock were reported more in the PCI group at hospital presentation. In addition, lower ejection fractions were reported in the PCI group. In hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) occurred more in patients undergoing CABG than PCI. At median follow-up of 15 months (interquartile range, 30), no difference was observed in freedom from revascularization, MACCE, or total mortality between those treated with PCI and CABG. While findings are similar to Western data registries, continued follow-up will be needed to ascertain whether this pattern continues into latter years.

Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Diabetics: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting?

The choice between coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for myocardial revascularization in patients with left main disease (LMD) is controversial. There is general agreement that CABG is appropriate for all patients, and PCI is acceptable for those with low-to-intermediate anatomic complexity. However, there is uncertainty about the relative safety and efficacy of PCI in patients with more complex LMD and with comorbidities such as diabetes. No direct comparison trial has focused on revascularization in diabetic patients with LMD, and thus conclusions on the topic are subject to the limitations of subgroup analysis, as well as the heterogeneous exclusion criteria, and methodologies of individual trials. The available evidence suggests that among diabetics, CABG is superior in patients with LMD with SYNTAX (SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and dardiac surgery) score greater than 33, distal bifurcation disease, or multivessel disease. PCI may be appropriate in those with less-extensive disease or those with limited life expectancy or high surgical risk.

The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

The question of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery remains among the most important questions in the treatment of coronary artery disease. The leading North American and European societies largely agree on the current guidelines for the revascularization of unprotected left-main disease (ULMD) and multivessel disease (MVD) which are largely supported by the outcomes of several large randomized trials including SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE, and EXCEL. While these trials are of the highest quality, currently available, they suffer several limitations, including the use of bare metal and/or first-generation drug-eluting stents in early trials and lack of updated surgical outcomes data. The objective of this review is to briefly discuss these key early trials, as well as explore contemporary studies, to provide insight on the current state of coronary revascularization. Evidence suggests that in ULMD and MVD, there are similar mortality rates for CABG and PCI but PCI is associated with fewer "early" strokes, whereas CABG is associated with fewer "late" strokes, myocardial infarctions, and lower need for repeat revascularization. Additionally, studies suggest that CABG remains superior to PCI in patients with intermediate/high SYNTAX scores and in MVD with concomitant proximal left anterior descending (pLAD) artery stenosis. Despite the preceding research and its basis for our current guidelines, there remains significant variation in care that has yet to be quantified. Emerging studies evaluating second-generation drug-eluting stents, specific lesion anatomy, and minimally invasive and hybrid approaches to CABG may lend itself to more individualized patient care.

Long-Term Outcomes After PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease According to Lesion Location

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of lesion site (ostial or shaft vs. distal bifurcation) on long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease.

BACKGROUND

Long-term comparative data after PCI and CABG for LMCA disease according to lesion site are limited.

METHODS

Patients from the MAIN-COMPARE (Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization) registry were analyzed, comparing adverse outcomes (all-cause mortality [a composite outcome of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or stroke] and target vessel revascularization) between PCI and CABG according to LMCA lesion location during a median follow-up period of 12.0 years.

RESULTS

In overall population, the adjusted risks for death and serious composite outcome were higher after PCI than after CABG for distal bifurcation disease, which was mainly separated beyond 5 years. These outcomes were not different for ostial or shaft disease. When comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) and CABG, the adjusted risks for death and serious composite outcome progressively diverged beyond 5 years after DES compared with CABG for distal bifurcation disease (death: hazard ratio: 1.78; 95% confidence interval: 1.22 to 2.59; composite outcome: hazard ratio: 1.94; 95% confidence interval: 1.35 to 2.79). This difference was driven mainly by PCI with a 2-stent technique for distal bifurcation. In contrast, the adjusted risks for these outcomes were similar between DES and CABG for ostial or shaft disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with distal LMCA bifurcation disease, CABG showed lower mortality and serious composite outcome rates compared with DES beyond 5 years. However, there were no between-group differences in these outcomes among patients with ostial or shaft LMCA disease.

Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: JACC Historical Breakthroughs in Perspective

Over the last 4 decades, percutaneous coronary intervention has evolved dramatically and is now an acceptable treatment option for patients with advanced coronary artery disease. However, trialists have struggled to establish the respective roles for percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, especially in patients with multivessel disease and unprotected left-main stem coronary artery disease. Several pivotal trials and meta-analyses comparing these 2 revascularization strategies have enabled the relative merits of each technique to be established with regard to the type of ischemic syndrome, the coronary anatomy, and the patient's overall comorbidity. Precision medicine with individualized prognosis is emerging as an important method of selecting treatment. However, the never-ending advancement of technology, in conjunction with the emergence of novel pharmacological agents, will in the future continue to force us to reconsider the evolving question: "Which treatment strategy is better and for which patient?"

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Lesions

Fundamento

O advento dos stents farmacológicos permitiu que a intervenção coronariana percutânea apresentasse resultados seguros nas lesões de tronco da artéria coronária esquerda.

Objetivos

Analisar os resultados do tratamento percutâneo da lesão não protegida de tronco da artéria coronária com a utilização de ultrassom intravascular.

Métodos

Estudo de série de casos consecutivos realizado no período de janeiro de 2010 a dezembro de 2018. Coletaram-se dados clínicos dos pacientes, assim como escores prognósticos e dados da lesão coronariana. Considerou-se de sucesso a lesão residual menor que 50% à angiografia e a área mínima da luz maior que 6 mm ² ao ultrassom intravascular. O nível de significância adotado foi de 5%.

Resultados

Analisaram-se 107 casos. A lesão multiarterial foi predominante, sendo com maior frequência (39,25%) encontradas lesões em três vasos além do tronco coronariano. O escore SYNTAX apresentou média de 46,80 (DP: 22,95), e 70 (65,42%) pacientes tiveram escore SYNTAX acima de 32 pontos. Considerou-se sucesso angiográfico da intervenção percutânea em 106 (99,06%) pacientes. A taxa geral de evento maior cardíaco e cerebrovascular no desfecho hospitalar foi 6,54%, sendo semelhante nos pacientes com escore SYNTAX ≤ 32 (8,10%) e ≥ 33 (5,71%; p = 0,68) .

Conclusões

A intervenção percutânea em casos de lesão não protegida de tronco coronariano foi realizada com segurança e apresentou ótimos resultados. Atingiu-se alto sucesso angiográfico de tratamento guiado pelo ultrassom intravascular. A taxa de eventos cardíacos e cerebrovasculares maiores foi semelhante entre os pacientes de menor e de maior risco.

Left Main Disease and Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Focus on Antithrombotic Therapy

Revascularization of both left main and bifurcation lesions is currently considered an important feature of complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), whereas stenting distal left main bifurcation is fairly challenging. Recent evidence shows that such lesions are associated with an increased risk of ischemic events. There is no universal consensus on the optimal PCI strategy or the appropriate type and duration of antithrombotic therapy to mitigate the thrombotic risk. Prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy or use of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors have been investigated in the context of this high-risk subset of the population undergoing PCI. Thus, while complex PCI is a growing field in interventional cardiology, left main and bifurcation PCI constitutes a fair amount of the total complex procedures performed recently, and there is cumulative interest regarding antithrombotic therapy type and duration in this subset of patients, with decision-making mostly based on clinical presentation, baseline bleeding, and ischemic risk, as well as the performed stenting strategy.

Long-term outcomes of percutaneous or surgical treatment in left main disease

INTRODUCTION

Long-term efficacy and safety of either surgical or percutaneous treatment left main coronary artery disease treatment is lacking.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the most updated randomized clinical trials that compared the efficacy of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the Left Main Coronary Artery (LMCA) disease. It was also conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, reference lists of relevant articles, and Medline. The search utilized the following terms: "left main PCI versus CABG," "drug-eluting stents," "bypass surgery" and "left main stenting." The search of articles compatible with our inclusion and exclusion criteria was performed from inception through April 2020 and returned a combined total of 304 articles.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 6 studies, providing data on 5812 patients. The mean follow-up was 6.7 years. PCI was associated with an increased risk of major vascular events (MACE) (IRR 1.24, 95% CI [1.03-1.67], P<0.01), and coronary revascularization (IRR 1.69, 95% CI [1.42-2.03], P<0.01) compared to CABG. Furthermore, all-cause death, MI and stroke events were not statistically different between the two therapeutic revascularization methodologies (IRR 1.06, 95% CI [0.90-1.24], P=0.47, IRR 1.35, 95% CI [0.84-2.16], P=0.03 and IRR 0.66, 95% CI [0.43-1.01], P=0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

LMCA PCI has an overall same survival compared to CABG in the long term follow-up. Nevertheless, MACE and revascularization events were more frequent in PCI compared to CABG.

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Unprotected Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Large Single-Centre Experience

Aims

This study sought to report the 10-year clinical outcomes of patients who underwent unprotected left main (LM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a large centre.

Methods and Results

A total of 913 consecutive patients who underwent unprotected LM PCI from January 2004 to December 2008 at Fu Wai Hospital were retrospectively analysed; the mean age was 60.0 ± 10.9 years, females accounted for 22% of patients, diabetes was present in 27.7% of patients, and an LM bifurcation lesion occurred in 82.9% of patients. During the median follow-up of 9.7 years, major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) occurred in 25.6% (234) of patients, and the rates of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke were 14.9%, 11.0%, and 7.1%, respectively. Cardiac death occurred in only 7.9% of patients. The estimated event rate was 41.9% for death/myocardial infarction/any revascularization and 45.9% for death/MI/stroke/any revascularization. Definite/probable stent thrombosis occurred in 4.3% (39) of patients. According to the subgroup analysis, IVUS-guided PCI was associated with less long-term MACCEs. Further multivariate analysis identified that age and LVEF<40% were the only independent predictors for 10-year death. Age, LVEF<40%, creatinine clearance, and incomplete revascularization were independent predictors for death/MI, while a two-stent strategy, diabetes, a transradial approach, and the use of bare metal stents (BMSs) or first-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) were not.

Conclusions

Unprotected LM PCI in a large cohort of consecutive patients in a single large centre demonstrated favourable long-term outcomes up to 10 years even with the use of BMSs and first-generation of DESs.

Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality in Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Percutaneous Interventions With Coronary Bypass Surgery: A Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Mortality is a common outcome in trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Controversy exists regarding whether all-cause mortality or cardiac mortality is preferred as a study end point, because noncardiac mortality should be unrelated to the treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the difference in all-cause and cause-specific mortality in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing PCI with CABG for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (1946 to the present), Embase (1974 to the present), and the Cochrane Library (1992 to the present) databases were searched on November 24, 2019. Reference lists of included articles were also searched, and additional studies were included if appropriate.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles were considered for inclusion if they were in English, were RCTs comparing PCI with drug-eluting or bare-metal stents and CABG for the treatment of coronary artery disease, and reported mortality and/or cause-specific mortality. Trials of PCI involving angioplasty without stenting were excluded. For each included trial, the publication with the longest follow-up duration for each outcome was selected.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

For data extraction, all studies were reviewed by 2 independent investigators, and disagreements were resolved by a third investigator in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline. Data were pooled using fixed- and random-effects models.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific (cardiac vs noncardiac) mortality. Subgroup analyses were performed for PCI trials using drug-eluting vs bare-metal stents and for trials involving patients with left main disease.

RESULTS

Twenty-three unique trials were included involving 13 620 unique patients (6829 undergoing PCI and 6791 undergoing CABG; men, 39.9%-99.0% of study populations; mean age range, 60.0-71.0 years). The weighted mean (SD) follow-up was 5.3 (3.6) years. Compared with CABG, PCI was associated with a higher rate of all-cause (incidence rate ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29) and cardiac (incidence rate ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05-1.45) mortality but also noncardiac mortality (incidence rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.00-1.41).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with higher all-cause, cardiac, and noncardiac mortality compared with CABG at 5 years. The significantly higher noncardiac mortality associated with PCI suggests that even noncardiac deaths after PCI may be procedure related and supports the use of all-cause mortality as the end point for myocardial revascularization trials.

Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Medical Therapy in Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients With 3-Vessel Disease

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to compare the long-term prognosis of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients with 3-vessel disease (3VD) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or medical therapy (MT).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Overall, 3,928 NSTE-ACS patients with 3VD were consecutively enrolled from April 2004 to February 2011 at Fu Wai Hospital. Patients were followed up for a median of 7.5 years, and were divided into PCI, CABG or MT groups according to their treatment. Compared with patients undergoing PCI, CABG patients had lower rates of myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularization, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and a higher rate of stroke (all P<0.05). Compared with MT, PCI and CABG had lower incidences of all adverse outcomes (all P<0.05), except for a similar rate of stroke between PCI and MT. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed similar results. After adjusting for confounders, CABG was independently associated with a lower risk of cardiac death, revascularization and MACCE compared with PCI (all P<0.05). Compared with MT, PCI reduced long-term risk of death, whereas CABG reduced long-term risk of death, revascularization and MACCE events (all P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In NSTE-ACS patients with 3VD, CABG is independently associated with a lower risk of long-term cardiac death, revascularization and MACCE compared with PCI. Patients who received MT alone had the highest risk of long-term MACCE.

NOBLE trial-is it time to revise the guidelines?

The Nordic-Baltic-British left main revascularization trial (NOBLE) is a prospective, randomized, multicentre, non-inferiority trial comparing percutaneous coronary angioplasty (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for revascularization of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis. The primary outcome was a combined endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, non-procedural myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. CABG was found to be superior to PCI with respect to the 5-year MACCE rates (28% vs. 19%) with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.58 (95% CI 1.24-2.01). All-cause mortality rates were similar, but PCI was associated with increased occurrence of non-procedural myocardial infarction (p = 0.0002) and repeat revascularization (p = 0.0009). There was no difference in the stroke rates (p = 0.11) at 5 years. Currently, European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (ESC/EACTS) guidelines on myocardial revascularization assign a class 1A recommendation to PCI in patients with unprotected LMCA stenosis with a SYNTAX score < 23. The findings of the NOBLE trial challenge this premise.

Percutaneous Intervention or Bypass Graft for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for stable left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) remains controversial.

Methods

Digital databases were searched to compare the major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and its components. A random effect model was used to compute an unadjusted odds ratio (OR).

Results

A total of 43 studies (37 observational and 6 RCTs) consisting of 29,187 patients (PCI 13,709 and CABG 15,478) were identified. The 30-day rate of MACCE (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.76; p = 0.0002) and all-cause mortality (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30-0.91; p = 0.02) was significantly lower in the PCI group. There was no significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI) (p = 0.17) and revascularization (p = 0.12). At 5 years, CABG was favored due to a significantly lower rate of MACCE (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.18-2.36; p = <0.04), MI (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.35-2.06; p = <0.00001), and revascularization (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 2.18-3.60; p = <0.00001), respectively. PCI was associated with a lower overall rate of a stroke, while the risk of all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the two groups at 1- (p = 0.75), 5- (p = 0.72), and 10-years (p = 0.20). The Kaplan-Meier curve reconstruction revealed substantial variations over time; the 5-year incidence of MACCE was 38% with CABG, significantly lower than 45% with PCI (p = <0.00001).

Conclusion

PCI might offer early safety advantages, while CABG provides greater durability in terms of lower long-term risk of ischemic events. There appears to be an equivalent risk for all-cause mortality.