Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery for the Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis In-Hospital and One Year Outcome After Emergent and Elective Treatments

Abstract

This study attempts to compare the risks and benefits of provisional stenting with drug eluting stents and bypass surgery for left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis. Recent improvements in interventional technologies have increased interest in percutaneous treatment of LMCA stenosis. However, application of percutaneous techniques to LMCA has been sporadic and controversial. In-hospital and one year outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cases were compared. From September, 2003 to June, 2005, a total of 59 consecutive patients with de novo unprotected LMCA stenosis were treated with either CABG or PCI. Twenty patients received non-intravascular ultrasound-guided PCI with a stent in the LMCA. Thirty-nine patients underwent CABG. At 30-day follow-up, the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACE) rates of mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebral vascular accident, and target vessel revascularization were 25.6% in the CABG group and 5% in the PCI group (P=0.054). At one year follow-up, the MACE rates were 33.3% in the CABG group and 5% in the PCI group. One year MACE for the CABG group significantly differed from that of the PCI group (P=0.015). The odds ratio (OR) of one year MACE-free survival was 0.75 (P<0.001) in the CABG group versus the PCI group. Further analysis demonstrated there was a significant difference in in-hospital MACE and one year MACE between the elective CABG group and elective PCI group (P=0.045). However, there was no significant difference between the emergent CABG group and emergent PCI group (P=1.000 for in-hospital MACE; P=0.486 for one year MACE). PCI on unprotected LM offers an alternative option in patients with high surgical risk and appropriate lesion morphology.