Is Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Now the Default Revascularization Strategy for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis?

Abstract

HomeJournal of the American Heart AssociationVol. 11, No. 7Is Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Now the Default Revascularization Strategy for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis? Open AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyRedditDiggEmail Jump toOpen AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBIs Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Now the Default Revascularization Strategy for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis? Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, MS Debabrata MukherjeeDebabrata Mukherjee * Correspondence to: Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, MS, Department of Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 4800 Alberta Avenue, El Paso, TX 79905. Email: E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5131-3694 Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, , Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, , El Paso, , TX Search for more papers by this author Originally published30 Mar 2022https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.025748Journal of the American Heart Association. 2022;11:e025748This article is a commentary on the followingTrends in Clinical Practice and Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Coronary ArteryOther version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: March 30, 2022: Ahead of Print Contemporary evidence suggests that surgical revascularization improves survival among patients with significant left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease, relative to that achieved with medical therapy alone.1 Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is also considered a reasonable option to improve survival, compared with medical therapy, in selected patients with low to medium anatomic complexity of LMCA disease that is equally suitable for surgical or percutaneous revascularization. Furthermore, several observational studies have demonstrated favorable outcomes when a multidisciplinary “Heart Team” of an interventional cardiologist, cardiac surgeon, and non‐invasive cardiologist was used to determine optimal revascularization modality in cases of unprotected left main disease.2, 3Several clinical trials have compared outcomes between coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and PCI for LMCA stenosis. The SYNTAX (TAXUS Drug‐Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for the Treatment of Narrowed Arteries) trial, which enrolled 705 patients with LMCA stenosis and a range of complex disease, showed a significantly higher major adverse cardiac events and cardiac mortality rate at 5 years for patients with high‐complexity LMCA disease defined as a SYNTAX score >33 who were treated with PCI.4 Of note, except SYNTAX, the other randomized controlled trials, NOBLE (Nordic‐Baltic‐British left main revascularization study),5 PRECOMBAT (Premier of Randomized Comparison of Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus‐Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) trial,6 and the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial,7 comparing PCI with CABG in patients with LMCA disease did not include patients with high complexity disease. Overall, these studies evaluating outcomes of PCI versus CABG in patients with low‐to‐medium anatomic complexity of coronary artery disease and with LMCA disease reported similar survival with PCI and CABG.PCI for unprotected LMCA disease was initially reserved only for patients who were considered ineligible for CABG. Improvements in interventional technology, the availability of stents, hemodynamic support devices, and encouraging results in CABG‐ineligible patients led to an uptick of this procedure despite an initial lack of data.8 The report from the ULTIMA (Unprotected Left Main Trunk Investigation Multicenter Assessment) registry characterizing the outcomes of 107 patients, the largest series on unprotected LMCA PCI at that time, however, revealed a disturbingly high 6‐month death rate of 10.6% related to inclusion of high risk patients ineligible for CABG, of older age and higher‐risk patient subsets of acute coronary syndromes and cardiogenic shock.9 With improvement in techniques and outcomes, and judicious choice of patients, PCI has now become a viable option for many patients with LMCA disease. In general, randomized controlled trials and meta‐analyses of these trials comparing outcomes of PCI versus CABG in patients with low‐to‐medium anatomic complexity of coronary artery disease with LMCA disease that is equally suitable for CABG or PCI have reported similar survival with PCI and CABG. A network meta‐analysis of 19 studies using Bayesian methods affirmed the survival advantage for PCI over medical therapy in patients with LMCA disease and reported identical benefits to the survival advantage for CABG over medical therapy.10 A more recent meta‐analysis also evaluated the effects of PCI with drug‐eluting stent compared with CABG for the treatment of LMCA stenosis, which included 4612 patients from 5 randomized controlled trials and reported that that PCI with drug‐eluting stent results in comparable mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction compared with CABG for revascularization of LMCA stenosis, but PCI was associated with higher rates of repeat revascularization.11 Compared with CABG, patients assigned to PCI had a similar rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.79–1.43), all‐cause mortality (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79–1.35), cardiovascular death (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.73–1.45), stroke (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.38–1.76), and myocardial infarction (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.87–2.47).11 However, the risk of any repeat revascularization was significantly greater in the PCI group than that in the CABG group (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.53–2.24).11There is paucity of data on outcomes of LMCA PCI in all‐comers without the strict inclusion criteria used in randomized controlled trials. In this issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA), Mohammad et al, describe nationwide trends in clinical practice and outcomes after PCI for LMCA in Sweden.12 The authors report a 4‐fold rise in LMCA PCI procedures conducted nationally, increased use of evidence‐based adjunctive treatment strategies, intracoronary diagnostics, newer stents, and improved outcomes. The shift towards PCI for LMCA disease in this national registry reflects the trend of LMCA revascularization not just in Sweden but likely in most areas in the world. Although the SYNTAX score was not recorded in this registry, ≈50% presented with a bifurcation lesion or multivessel disease suggestive of more complex disease excluded in most contemporary trials. Of note, a significant increase of LMCA PCI was performed in individuals with diabetes, a subgroup that, in general, benefits more from CABG than from PCI and the observation of a 50% higher major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event in this group is concerning. In addition, patients revascularized with CABG for LMCA during the same time period were not included in the analysis and such studies could provide additional insight into a possible shift in revascularization strategy towards PCI and comparative outcomes. Such comparative real‐world outcomes for patients with left main stenosis revascularized with CABG during this time period would help further define optimal revascularization modality for these patients. The outcomes of patients with LMCA stenosis treated with CABG have markedly improved over time. Reports of those who underwent CABG in the contemporary era show 30‐day mortality ranges 3% to 4.2% and the survival at 2 years is ≈95%.13 While a nearly 40% decrease in peri‐procedural complications and 3‐year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events risk between 2005 and 2017 reported by the authors is reassuring,12 it is conceivable that outcomes with CABG could have been superior in some patients, especially in those with high complexity LMCA stenosis and in those with diabetes.GUIDANCE FOR CLINICIANSBased on contemporary evidence and current guidelines14 (Table), it seems reasonable to state that patients with unprotected LMCA stenosis and high complexity disease benefit more with CABG. On the other hand for individuals with low‐to‐medium anatomic complexity LMCA coronary artery disease, PCI is a reasonable option and may in fact be preferred in many patients. Figure provides a framework for individualized approach to the management of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Finally, individuals with LMCA stenosis are a particularly high risk group who benefit from optimal guideline‐directed medical therapies such as cessation of tobacco abuse, achieving optimal blood pressure goal (<130/80 mm Hg), lipid‐lowering therapy with statins, and if needed, PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitors, physical exercise, and optimal glycemic control.15DisclosuresNone.Table . Recommendations for Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis From the 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization14Class of recommendationLevel of recommendationRecommendations1BIn patients with SIHD and significant LMCA stenosis, CABG is recommended to improve survival1BIn patients who require revascularization for significant LMCA with high‐complexity coronary artery disease, it is recommended to choose CABG over PCI to improve survival2aBIn selected patients with SIHD and significant LMCA stenosis for whom PCI can provide equivalent revascularization to that possible with CABG, PCI is reasonable to improve survival2bBIn patients with diabetes who have left main stenosis and low‐ or intermediate‐complexity CAD in the rest of the coronary anatomy, PCI may be considered an alternative to CABG to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomesJohn Wiley & Sons, LtdACC indicates American College of Cardiology; AHA, American Heart Association; CABG indicates coronary artery bypass surgery; CAD, coronary artery disease; LMCA, left main coronary artery; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; SCAI, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention; and SIHD, stable ischemic heart disease.Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure . Individualized approach to the management of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis.CABG indicates coronary artery bypass surgery; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; and SYNTAX, synergy between PCI with TAXUS and cardiac surgery.Footnotes* Correspondence to: Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, MS, Department of Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 4800 Alberta Avenue, El Paso, TX 79905. Email: debabrata.[email protected]eduThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.For Disclosures, see page 3.See Article by Mohammad et al.References1 Yusuf S, Zucker D, Passamani E, Peduzzi P, Takaro T, Fisher LD, Kennedy JW, Davis K, Killip T, Norris R, et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10‐year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet. 1994; 344:563–570. doi: 10.1016/S0140‐6736(94)91963‐1CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Patterson T, McConkey HZR, Ahmed‐Jushuf F, Moschonas K, Nguyen H, Karamasis GV, Perera D, Clapp BR, Roxburgh J, Blauth C, et al. Long‐term outcomes following heart team revascularization recommendations in complex coronary artery disease. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019; 8:e011279. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.011279LinkGoogle Scholar3 Yamasaki M, Abe K, Horikoshi R, Hoshino E, Yanagisawa H, Yoshino K, Misumi H, Mizuno A, Komiyama N. Enhanced outcomes for coronary artery disease obtained by a multidisciplinary heart team approach. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019; 67:841–848. doi: 10.1007/s11748‐019‐01108‐4CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Morice M‐C, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Ståhle E, Colombo A, Mack MJ, Holmes DR, Choi JW, Ruzyllo W, et al. Five‐year outcomes in patients with left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery trial. Circulation. 2014; 129:2388–2394. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006689LinkGoogle Scholar5 Mäkikallio T, Holm NR, Lindsay M, Spence MS, Erglis A, Menown IBA, Trovik T, Eskola M, Romppanen H, Kellerth T, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open‐label, non‐inferiority trial. Lancet. 2016; 388:2743–2752. doi: 10.1016/S0140‐6736(16)32052‐9CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Park S‐J, Kim Y‐H, Park D‐W, Yun S‐C, Ahn J‐M, Song HG, Lee J‐Y, Kim W‐J, Kang S‐J, Lee S‐W, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364:1718–1727. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1100452CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Stone GW, Kappetein AP, Sabik JF, Pocock SJ, Morice M‐C, Puskas J, Kandzari DE, Karmpaliotis D, Brown WM, Lembo NJ, et al. Five‐year outcomes after PCI or CABG for left main coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381:1820–1830. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909406CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Park SJ, Park SW, Hong MK, Cheong SS, Lee CW, Kim JJ, Hong MK, Mintz GS, Leon MB. Stenting of unprotected left main coronary artery stenoses: immediate and late outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998; 31:37–42. doi: 10.1016/S0735‐1097(97)00425‐7CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Tan WA, Tamai H, Park S‐J, Plokker HWT, Nobuyoshi M, Suzuki T, Colombo A, Macaya C, Holmes DR, Cohen DJ, et al. Long‐term clinical outcomes after unprotected left main trunk percutaneous revascularization in 279 patients. Circulation. 2001; 104:1609–1614. doi: 10.1161/hc3901.096669LinkGoogle Scholar10 Bittl JA, He Y, Jacobs AK, Yancy CW, Normand SL; American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines . Bayesian methods affirm the use of percutaneous coronary intervention to improve survival in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2013; 127:2177–2185. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000646LinkGoogle Scholar11 Sardar P, Giri J, Elmariah S, Chatterjee S, Kolte D, Kundu A, Nairooz R, Aronow WS, Owan T, Mukherjee D. Meta‐analysis of drug‐eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main coronary narrowing. Am J Cardiol. 2017; 119:1746–1752. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.03.009CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 Mohammad MA, Persson J, Buccheri S, Odenstedt J, Sarno G, Angerås O, Völz S, Tödt T, Götberg M, Isma N, et al. Trends in clinical practice and outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention of unprotected left main coronary artery. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022; 11:e024040. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.024040LinkGoogle Scholar13 Taggart DP, Kaul S, Boden WE, Ferguson TB, Guyton RA, Mack MJ, Sergeant PT, Shemin RJ, Smith PK, Yusuf S. Revascularization for unprotected left main stem coronary artery stenosis stenting or surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 51:885–892. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.09.067CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Lawton JS, Tamis‐Holland JE, Bangalore S, Bates ER, Beckie TM, Bischoff JM, Bittl JA, Cohen MG, DiMaio JM, Don CW, et al. 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. Circulation. 2022; 145:e18–e114. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001038LinkGoogle Scholar15 Said S, Mukherjee D, Whayne TF. Interrelationships with metabolic syndrome, obesity and cardiovascular risk. Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2016; 14:415–425. doi: 10.2174/1570161114666160722121615CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesTrends in Clinical Practice and Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Coronary ArteryMoman A. Mohammad, et al. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2022;11 April 5, 2022Vol 11, Issue 7Article InformationMetrics Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley BlackwellThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.025748PMID: 35352567 Originally publishedMarch 30, 2022 Keywordseditorialspercutaneous coronary interventionunprotected left main coronary artery diseasePDF download SubjectsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRevascularizationStent