Abstract

Left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease is defined as > 50% narrowing of vessel diameter; it is the disease of significant morbidity and mortality because it supplies 75% of the left ventricle, so any insult to the left main can lead to severe LV dysfunction, sudden cardiac arrest and arrhythmia. The incidence of left main disease in patients undergoing coronary angiography is 4-6%. The untreated left main disease has mortality around 20% at 1 year [1,2].Initially, the procedure of choice for the significant left main disease was coronary artery by-pass surgery (CABG), as medical therapy carries a high mortality rate as compared to CABG (36.5% vs 16.0%). Nevertheless, with the advancement in percutaneous intervention (PCI), there is a growing interest and passion in the percutaneous intervention of LMCA [3]. European [4] and American [5] guidelines recommend CABG (class I) as the treatment method of choice for LMCA in patients with all anatomical complexities. Current European treatment guidelines give PCI class I along with CABG if SYNTAX score < 22, class IIa if between 23-32, and class III (Harm) if SYNTAX > 33. Current US guidelines currently gives class IIa recommendation for PCI if syntax score is low, class IIb for a score between 23-32 and similar to European guideline's class III (Harm) for SYNTAX score > 33. We reviewed the major landmark trials that compare PCI vs CBAG as a treatment option for left main disease along with important meta-analysis

Highlights

  • Left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease is defined as > 50% narrowing of vessel diameter; it is the disease of significant morbidity and mortality because it supplies 75% of the left ventricle, so any insult to the left main can lead to severe LV dysfunction, sudden cardiac arrest and arrhythmia

  • Results of this study showed coronary artery by-pass surgery (CABG) is better than medical therapy for treatment of left main coronary artery stenosis [6]

  • Stroke incidence was slightly higher in CABG group as compared to percutaneous intervention (PCI) (2.9% vs 2.3%)

Read more

Summary

Literature

Usman Sarwar1, Nikky Bardia2, Ali Hussain3, Muhammad Nadeem4, Hassan Tahir5 1,2 Department of Cardiology, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA Saint Micahel’s Medical Center, NJ, USA Sentara Albemarle Medical Center, NC, USA Department of Cardiology, Heart Lung Vascular Institute, University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville, TN, US Email Address: usmanaimc@gmail.com

Introduction
The choice of CABG vs PCI as a treatment for the
Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft
Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients with
Findings
Coronary Angioplasty versus Coronary

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.