Midterm Outcome of Off-Pump Bypass Procedures Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract

Although surgical revascularization is recommended for the treatment of left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) attempts have increased, especially after the introduction of the drug-eluting stent. The goal of this study was to compare the midterm outcomes between drug-eluting stenting and off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) grafting in LMCA disease. Five hundred twelve consecutive patients with unprotected LMCA disease who underwent OPCAB (N = 269) or drug-eluting stenting (N = 243) were enrolled. We compared major cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) in a real-world cohort and in a matching patient cohort (N = 256). The duration of mean follow-up was 38 ± 20 months, and the follow-up rate was 97.7%. In a real-world comparison, the OPCAB group showed better 5-year freedom from MACCEs compared with the stenting group (71.5% ± 4.4% versus 67.6% ± 4.0%; p = 0.031), despite worse patient characteristics. After patient matching, the OPCAB group showed more distinct benefit in 5-year freedom from MACCEs (75.3% ± 6.6% versus 62.8% ± 5.4; p < 0.001), including a significantly lower target vessel revascularization (TVR) rate (p < 0.001). In a subgroup analysis, the benefit of OPCAB regarding 5-year freedom from MACCEs was more clearly defined for lesions of the distal LCMA and in LMCA lesions with multivessel disease (p = 0.015, p = 0.004, respectively). Patients with LMCA disease who were treated with OPCAB showed better 5-year freedom from MACCEs in a real-world practice and in a patient matching cohort compared with the drug-eluting stenting group. TVR was the main factor that made the difference. The benefit of OPCAB was more prominent in distal LMCA lesions and in LMCA lesions with multivessel involvement.