Treatment Of Left Main Coronary Artery Research Articles

Significance of diabetes mellitus status in patients undergoing percutaneous left main coronary artery intervention.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a modifiable risk factor for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Treatment with insulin correlates with advanced disease and has been associated with excess cardiovascular risk, but evidence on outcomes of patients with insulin-treated DM (ITDM) undergoing left main percutaneous coronary intervention (LMPCI) remains scarce. The aim of the presented study is to evluate the risk attributable to DM and ITDM in patients undergoing LMPCI. We included 869 patients undergoing PCI for unprotected LMCAD. The cohort was divided into three subgroups based on diabetic status: No DM, ITDM, and Non-ITDM. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as a composite of death, spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 1 year. Results were adjusted for clinically relevant baseline characteristics. Amongst participants, 58.7% had no DM, 25.9% non-ITDM, and 15.4% ITDM. Diabetics were younger and more likely to be female. They also exhibited higher body mass index as well as prevalence of comorbidities, including hypertension, anemia, and chronic kidney disease. The number of bifurcation lesions and stents used was similar between groups. At 1 year, when compared to no DM, ITDM (25.4% vs. 10.0%, p < 0.01) but not non-ITDM (10.8% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.94) demonstrated higher MACCE. This finding was driven by increased risk of MI. Mortality was 8.4%, 7.8%, and 17.2% for no DM, Non-ITDM, and ITDM, respectively. Results remained unchanged after adjustment. In a rather contemporary patient population undergoing PCI for LMCAD, ITDM but not non-ITDM was associated with higher risk of 1-year MACCE, primarily driven by MI.

Short-Term Outcomes of Left Main Coronary Artery Intervention in Comparison with Modern Calcium Modification Therapy During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in A Regional Australian Hospital

Short-Term Outcomes of Left Main Coronary Artery Intervention in Comparison with Modern Calcium Modification Therapy During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in A Regional Australian Hospital

Pivotal Decision for Acute Coronary Syndrome Patient with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease, When to Choose PCI over CABG

Background: Surgery is acceptable as a standard treatment of Left Main Coronary Artery (LMCA) Disease in a stable angina condition. But, in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) setting, LMCA intervention is a still clinical challenge in many cardiac centers. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a suitable alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for high-risk complex coronary artery disease (CAD) scenario. This study aimed to outline the management of NSTEMI patient include LMCA disease. Case presentation: A 72-year-old male presented with persistent chest pain, with a confirmed NSTEMI. A coronary angiography was done and revealed Three Vessel Disease (TVD) and Left Main (LM) CAD with highly calcified stenosis in the distal LM and Left Anterior Descending (LAD). An early invasive procedure was successfully performed for severely calcified LAD artery and distal LM lesions, using proper selection of several bail-out pre-dilatation difficult attempts such as scoring ballon and rotational atherectomy (RA). We observed the aftercare period, which showed no subsequent ACS events. Conclusion: Managing ACS patients requires careful consideration and risk assessment before deciding on revascularization procedures, especially in high-risk case such as LMCA disease. PCI can be an effective treatment strategy for this population but require good consideration of patient’s anatomical factors, comorbidities, the availability of appropriate skill and equipment. Keyword: Acute Coronary Syndrome, Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery, Left Main Coronary Artery, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Coronary rotational atherectomy in patients with severe aortic stenosis

Abstract Introduction Rotational atherectomy (RA) has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with severe calcified coronary arteries lesions. However, clinical data on the use of RA in patients with concomitant severe aortic stenosis (AS patients) are lacking. Escalation to RA for coronary lesion preparation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still controversial, given their impaired haemodynamic status and possible higher risk of complications. We reported the clinical outcomes of AS patients undergoing RA and TAVI from a prospective clinical registry and compared their outcome with patients undergoing RA with no severe aortic valve stenosis (non-AS patients). Methods We retrieved data of all consecutively enrolled patients in a single centre registry from January 2016 up to October 2021. All AS patients who underwent RA prior to TAVI within a six-month period were included for our analysis. We compared the AS patients with all patients without severe aortic stenosis (non-AS patients) who underwent RA during the same period. Data were analysed to assess rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) in AS vs non-AS patients. MACE was defined as composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularisation. Procedural characteristics as well as in-hospital outcomes and complications were also examined to detect differences between both patient groups. We then performed univariate and multivariate analyses using binary logistic regression with the presence of severe aortic stenosis as a dependent variable for MACE. Results A total of 472 patients underwent RA. Of those, 38 (8.05%) had severe AS and received TAVI within six months after index RA. Compared with the AS-patients, more non-AS patients presented with acute coronary syndrome (2.6% vs 19.8 %; p&amp;lt;0.009). Left main coronary artery intervention was documented in 36.8% of the AS-patients and in 25.1% of the non-AS patients. Mechanical circulatory support during the procedures was low (10 %) in both groups and was used only in two patients from the AS group. The procedural success was 97% and did not differ between both patients’ groups. There was no difference of in-hospital MACE between the AS and non-AS patients (7.9% vs 8.8%; p=0.418). Procedural rates of complications related to RA such as slow flow, coronary dissection, coronary perforation, or trapped burr did not differ between both patient groups. Adverse outcomes of RA were not affected by the presence of severe AS in the univariate analysis (OR 1.12; 95% CI [0.33-3.91]; p=0.857). Conclusion RA in patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI is feasible, and in-hospital adverse events were comparable to non-AS patients. Adequate lesion preparation of calcified coronary arteries should be implemented regardless of the presence of severe AS.

TCT-109 Clinical Benefit of Intravascular Imaging Compared With Conventional Angiography in Left Main Coronary Artery Intervention

TCT-109 Clinical Benefit of Intravascular Imaging Compared With Conventional Angiography in Left Main Coronary Artery Intervention

Do two operators improve outcomes in left main percutaneous coronary intervention? Insights from the ORPKI Registry.

Significant left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease is prevalent in 7% of patients undergoing angiography. Limited data exists on the impact of double scrubbing in LMCA PCI. We sought to assess periprocedural outcomes in two-operator LMCA percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Using data from the Polish National Registry of PCI (ORPKI), we collected data on 28,745 patients undergoing LMCA PCI from 154 centers. Patients were divided into two groups based on the number of operators performing PCI (one vs. two operators). LMCA PCI was performed by a single operator in 86% of the cases and by two operators in 14% of cases. Patients treated by two operators had a greater comorbidity burden including diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension, previous myocardial infarction, and previous revascularization. In addition, these were more likely to be treated in high-volume centers, by operators with higher volume of LMCA PCIs. The risk of periprocedural death (2.37% vs. 2.44%; P=0.78), as well as cardiac arrest, coronary artery perforation, no-reflow, and puncture site bleeding was comparable between the two groups. On multivariable analysis, we found that a two-operator strategy was an independent predictor of periprocedural death, with this effect being much more profound in an elective setting (OR=5.13 [1.37-19.26]; P=0.015), compared to an urgent (ACS) setting (OR=1.32 [1.00-1.73]; P=0.047). Our study suggests that a two-operator approach is not necessarily routinely recommended for LMCA interventions, although it can be considered for more complex cases.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support with and without intra-aortic balloon in cardiogenic shock patients

ObjectiveTo assess the clinical characteristics and in-hospital bleeding complications and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) associated with the use of Impella alone or the combination of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) with Impella in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). MethodsAll CS patients who underwent PCI and were treated with an Impella mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device were identified. Patients were divided into two groups: having MCS support with Impella alone or with both, IABP and Impella simultaneously (dual MCS group). Bleeding complications were classified by a modified Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) classification. Major bleeding was defined as BARC≥3 bleeding. MACCE was the composite of in-hospital death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events and major bleeding complications. ResultsBetween 2010 and 2018 a total of 101 patients were treated at six tertiary care New York hospitals with either Impella (n = 61) or dual MCS with Impella and IABP (n = 40). Clinical characteristics were similar for both groups. Dual MCS patients presented more often with a STEMI (77.5 % vs. 45.9 %, p = 0.002) and had left main coronary artery intervention (20.3 % vs. 8.6 %, p = 0.03). Major bleeding complications (69.4 % vs. 74.1 %, p = 0.62) and MACCE rates (80.6 % vs. 79.3 %, p = 0.88) were very high but similar in both groups, however access site bleeding complications were lower in patients treated with dual MCS. In-hospital mortality was 29.5 % for the Impella group and 25.0 % for the dual MCS group (p = 062). Access site bleeding complications were lower in in patients treated with dual MCS (5.0 % vs. 24.6 %, p = 0.01). ConclusionIn CS patients undergoing PCI with either the Impella device alone or with Impella and IABP, major bleeding complications and MACCE rates were high but not significantly different between the two groups. In hospital mortality was relatively low in both MCS groups despite the high-risk characteristics of these patients. Future studies should assess the risks and benefits of the simultaneous use of these two MCS in CS patients undergoing PCI.

Short term Outcomes of left main coronary artery Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A large tertiary care dedicated Cardiac Centre experience.

Background: Left main coronary artery intervention is getting common throughout the world. Data in our local population are still lacking. Our aim was to study the short-term outcomes after revascularization of left main coronary artery (LMCA) at a tertiary care Centre at public sector hospital in Pakistan.&#x0D; Methodology: In this descriptive study conducted at Peshawar Institute of Cardiology, we enrolled consecutive patients who underwent LMCA intervention from January 2021 till November 2021. Direct patients’ interviews, reviewing charts and records were used for in-hospital outcomes and telephonic and physical follow up were used to document three months outcome. Results were expressed as means, standard deviations and percentages for different variables.&#x0D; Results: Total number of patients in the study were 68. The mean age was 61 ± 11.7 years, 73.5% (50 cases) were males. Six patients (8.8%) were in cardiogenic shock and five of them were put on mechanical ventilation. Thirty-two (47.1%) patients had presentation as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within the last seven days. Mean follow up time was 170 ± 71 days. Mortality in-hospital was 5.8%, at the mean follow up it was 8.8%.&#x0D; Conclusion: Comparable short-term outcomes of left main coronary artery PCI, to national and international data can be achieved in a public sector hospital in our country where resources are scarce. Hence LMCA PCI is an acceptable alternative to CABG in suitable patients.

Left Ventricular Support for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Interventions (The Dayton Heart and Vascular Impella Registry).

Coronary artery bypass grafting is the standard of care for patients with obstructive left main (LM) coronary disease. In poor surgical candidates, high-risk percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI) is an alternative. We investigated a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent LM PCI from January 2010 to March 2014 (n = 89). Obstructive LM disease was defined as 50% angiographic obstruction of luminal flow, and the primary endpoint was inhospital mortality. Ventricular assist device (VAD) was defined as the use of either intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or Impella 2.5 devices before, during, or following PCI. A total of 89 patients with LM PCI were divided into those with (n = 39) and without (n = 50) VAD support. The former group was further divided into those with support from either Impella 2.5 (n = 28) or IABP (n = 11). Age, race, and gender did not differ between patients who received unassisted LM-PCI from those with VAD support (P = 0.142, 1.0, and 0.776, respectively). The angiographic stenosis of atherosclerotic lesions in LM, proximal left anterior descending artery, and other native/surgical coronary vessels was similar between the groups. The duration of hospitalization was significantly longer for patients with VAD support compared to those without (7.19 ± 6.89 vs. 2.78 ± 3.39, P < 0.001). The incidence of cardiogenic shock and inhospital mortality was significantly higher in the VAD group (P = 0.009 and 0.001, respectively). Overall, inhospital mortality was 9% (8/89). The IABP and Impella 2.5 groups had mortality proportions of 46% (5/11) and 11% (3/28), respectively; P = 0.028. For all patients, inhospital mortality was higher for those with versus without cardiogenic shock (56% or 5/9 vs. 4% or 3/80; P < 0.001), and for those with versus without left ventricular systolic function <40% (17% vs. 2%;P < 0.025). In a selected group of patients with LM disease, unsupported PCI appears to be a feasible and safe procedure. In high-risk patients, the use of Impella 2.5 appears to be superior to IABP in LM PCI resulting in favorable short-term outcomes.

What is the clinical benefit of left main coronary artery treatment by percutaneous coronary intervention?

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction The treatment of choice of left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease has been subject to intense debate and investigation in the last decade. More recent studies showed benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with less complex coronary anatomy. Although it is not the standard treatment, the use of this technique has been increasing. Objectives Characterize the patient population undergoing LMCA PCI and analyze its clinical benefit. Also, try to identify patient profiles according to the composite outcome (angor, heart failure symptoms (HF), myocardial infarction (MI) or death) in short and medium term (30 days (D) and 180D). Methods Observational and retrospective study of patients submitted to LMCA PCI, between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020. A descriptive analysis was carried out. Chi-Square test was used for categorical variables and the T-Student test for numerical variables, with a significance level of 95%. CHIAD algorithm was applied to identify patient profiles – composite outcome was the dependent variable (fixed 15 parent nodes and 5 children nodes). For statistical analysis, SPSS 24.0 was used. Results N120 patients, mean age of 70,4 years (standard deviation of 10.8), 76% were male. 81.7% had multivessel disease, with LMCA-anterior descendig artery injury being the most frequent (31.7%). The average LVEF was 49%. The complication rate was 15.8%, most vessel dissections. The most serious complications (cardio-respiratory arrest and cardiogenic shock) occurred in 0.8% of cases. The composite outcome occurred in 25,2% (30D) and 13,3% (180D), regardless of past medical history and number/type of vessels affected. The presence of angor was 9.9% (30D) and 1.3% (180D); HF symptoms in 13.5% (30D) and 4.8% (180D); MI in 2.7% (30D) and 1.2% (180D) and mortality in 2.7% (30D) and 2.4% (180D). In a logic of dependence and profiles, patients with LVEF [45-55%] (95.6%-p=0.003) who treated the lesions in first intention (AdHoc) (100%-p=0.009) presented fewer occurrences at 30D. Patients with occurrences at 30D (65.2%-p=0.001) or without PV of LVEF (66.7%-p = 0.016) and dyslipidemia (53.8%-p = 0.027) were those with most occurrences at 180D. Conclusion This analysis highlights the experience of the angiography laboratory. The majority of patients experienced evident clinical improvement and recovered in shortand medium term. The rate of serious events was low. The analysis suggests that the greatest benefit were found in the profile of patients with LVEF [45-55%] with an AdHoc approach.

Angiographic-only or intravascular ultrasound-guided approach for left-main coronary artery intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT Introduction The use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in percutaneous revascularization of left-main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) warrants further exploration. We aimed to collate all available data on the merits of IVUS in LMCAD to help decision-making. Methods The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies (OCS). The data were analyzed using random-effects model to calculate unadjusted odds ratio (OR) between IVUS-guided and angiography-only LMCA revascularization. Results A total of 14 studies (2 RCTs and 12 OCS), comprising 18944 patients, were included. The pooled odds of all-cause mortality (OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.46–0.70, p = <0.00001), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.37, 95%CI 0.26–0.54, p = <0.00001), left-main revascularization (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.45–0.89, p = 0.009) and myocardial infarction (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66–0.97, p = 0.02) were significantly lower with IVUS-guidance. There was no difference observed in the odds of the stent thrombosis (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31–1.05, p = 0.07) and stroke (OR 1.7, 95%CI 0.56–5.14, p = 0.35) between the two groups. A subgroup analysis based on the study design and follow-up duration mirrored the pooled estimates. Conclusion IVUS-guided LMCA intervention is associated with overall improved cardiovascular outcomes than the angiography-only approach. This needs to be tested in a large randomized controlled trial.

Left Main Disease PCI vs CABG: A Brief Review of Important Literature

Left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease is defined as &gt; 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 &lt; 22, class IIa if between 23-32, and class III (Harm) if SYNTAX &gt; 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 &gt; 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

Factors associated with left ventricular reverse remodelling after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is sometimes considered as an alternative therapeutic strategy to surgical revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the types or conditions of patients that receive the clinical benefit of left ventricular reverse remodelling (LVRR) remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the determinants of LVRR following PCI in CAD patients with reduced LVEF. From 4394 consecutive patients who underwent PCI, a total of 286 patients with reduced LV systolic function (LVEF < 50% at initial left ventriculography) were included in the analysis. LVRR was defined as LV end-systolic volume reduction ≥ 15% and improvement of LVEF ≥ 10% at 6 months follow-up left ventriculography. Patients were divided into LVRR (n = 63) and non-LVRR (n = 223) groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) intervention was significantly associated with LVRR (P = 0.007, odds ratios [OR] 4.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.54–14.38), while prior PCI (P = 0.001, OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19–0.66), presence of in-stent restenosis (P = 0.016, OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12–0.81), and presence of de-novo stenosis (P = 0.038, OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14–0.95) were negatively associated with LVRR. These data suggest the potential prognostic benefit of unprotected LMCA intervention for LVRR and importance of angiographic follow-up in patients with CAD and LV systolic dysfunction.

Optimal Duration for Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting

Coronary interventions using drug-eluting stents (DESs) of left main coronary artery (LMCA) lesions have shown favorable clinical outcomes. However, duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after LMCA interventions has not yet been investigated.Methods and Results:From a multicenter Korean Multicenter Angioplasty Team (KOMATE) registry, 1,004 patients who received DES implantations for LMCA lesions and did not experience major adverse cardiovascular events (including major bleeding) for 1 year after coronary intervention were analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups; DAPT ≤12 (n=503) and >12 months (n=501). The primary endpoint was number of net clinical adverse events (NACEs), composite of cardiac deaths, myocardial infarctions, stent thrombosis and major bleeding events. During a 4.5-year follow-up period after LMCA interventions, the DAPT >12 months group showed a lower NACE rate than the DAPT ≤12 months group (adjusted-HR 0.53 [0.29-0.99], P=0.045). For patients who maintained DAPT >12 months, rate of cardiac deaths, myocardial infarctions, and stent thrombosis events were lower than in patients who had DAPT ≤12 months (adjusted-HR 0.35 [0.17-0.73], P=0.005) without increased major bleeding (P=0.402).For patients who can continue DAPT without major bleeding events, prolonged DAPT (>12 months) after LMCA stenting demonstrated better long-term efficacy outcomes than DAPT ≤12 months with comparable safety.

A Case of Using the Distal Radial Artery to Open an Occluded Radial Artery

We describe a case of radial artery occlusion caused by previous percutaneous coronary intervention. The occluded radial artery was opened through the distal radial artery, and left main coronary artery intervention was subsequently performed. Follow-up vascular ultrasound showed that the radial artery had smooth blood flow and no stenosis. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.)

Abstract 14575: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Intravascular Ultrasound-guided Percutaneous Left-main Coronary Artery Intervention

Introduction: Previous meta-analyses have reported reduced cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction in intravascular ultrasound-guided (IVUS) stent implantation in comparison to angiography-only approach. However, these studies have unanimously excluded patients with unprotected left-main coronary artery (LMCA) disease, questioning its widespread applicability. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the prognostic significance of IVUS-guided LMCA intervention. Methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes between IVUS-guided and angiography-only percutaneous LMCA intervention were identified through PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases until June, 2020. Data was analyzed using a random effect model to calculate the relative odds of all-cause death, cardiac death, left-main revascularization, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke. Results: A total of 13 studies comprising 7680 patients were included. The odds of all-cause death (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.47-0.78; p&lt;0.0001), cardiac death (OR 0.37, 95%CI 0.26-0.54; p&lt;0.00001), left-main revascularization (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.45-0.89; p=0.009) and myocardial infarction (OR 0.77 [95%CI 0.60-0.98; p=0.04]) were significantly lower in patients who underwent IVUS-guided LMCA stent implantation compared to angiography-only approach. There was no significant difference observed in the relative odds of stent thrombosis (OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.31-1.05; p=0.07) and stroke (OR 1.7, 95%CI 0.56-5.14; p=0.35) between the two arms at least 1-year of the index procedure. A subgroup analysis based on study design and sensitivity analysis based on the characteristics of the included studies mirrored the pooled results. Conclusion: IVUS-guided LMCA intervention is associated with overall improved cardiovascular outcomes than angiography-only approach. Large scale randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.

Residual Right Coronary Artery Stenosis after Left Main Coronary Artery Intervention Increased the 30-Day Cardiovascular Death and 3-Year Right Coronary Artery Revascularization Rate.

Background The outcomes of patients with concomitant left main coronary artery (LMCA) and right coronary artery (RCA) diseases are reportedly worse than those with only LMCA disease. To date, only few studies have investigated the clinical impact of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on RCA stenosis during the same hospitalization, in which LMCA disease was treated. This study was aimed at comparing the outcomes between patients with and without right coronary artery intervention during the same hospital course for LMCA intervention. Methods and Results From a total of 776 patients who were undergoing PCI to treat LMCA disease, 235 patients with concomitant RCA significant stenosis (more than 70% stenosis) were enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups: 174 patients received concomitant PCI for RCA stenosis during the same hospitalization, in which LMCA disease was treated, and 61 patients did not receive PCI for RCA stenosis. Patients without intervention to the right coronary artery had higher 30-day cardiovascular mortality rates and 3-year RCA revascularization rates compared to those with right coronary artery intervention. Patients without RCA intervention at the same hospitalization did not increase the 30-day total death, 3-year myocardial infarction rate, 3-year cardiovascular death, and 3-year total death. Conclusions In patients with LM disease and concomitant above or equal to 70% RCA stenosis, PCI for RCA lesion during the same hospitalization is recommended to reduce the 30-day cardiovascular death and 3-year RCA revascularization rate.

WHAT IS THE OPTIMAL DURATION FOR DUAL ANTIPLATELET THERAPY AFTER LEFT MAIN CORONARY ARTERY STENTING

Coronary interventions using drug-eluting stents (DESs) after left main coronary artery (LMCA) lesions have shown favorable clinical outcomes. However, the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after LMCA interventions with DESs has not yet been investigated. A total of 1,004 patients

Left Main Coronary Artery Interventions.

The management of left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease has evolved over the past two decades. Historically, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery has been the gold standard for the treatment of LMCA disease. However, with the advancements in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) and stent technology, PCI in select patients has achieved comparable outcomes to CABG. As such, this has led to changes in the American College of Cardiology and European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which recommend that PCI might be an alternative to CABG in select patients. In this review article, we describe the historical perspective and early experience with coronary interventions of LMCA disease, landmark clinical trials and their effect on guidelines, and the role of intravascular imaging in the management of LMCA lesions.

Impact of large periprocedural myocardial infarction on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting for left main disease: an analysis from the EXCEL trial.

The prognostic implications of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain controversial. We examined the 3-year rates of mortality among patients with and without PMI undergoing left main coronary artery intervention randomized to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents vs. CABG in the large-scale, multicentre, prospective, randomized EXCEL trial. By protocol, PMI was defined using an identical threshold for PCI and CABG [creatinine kinase-MB (CK-MB) elevation >10× the upper reference limit (URL) within 72 h post-procedure, or >5× URL with new Q-waves, angiographic vessel occlusion, or loss of myocardium on imaging]. Cox proportional hazards modelling was performed controlling for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, left ventricular ejection fraction, SYNTAX score, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A total of 1858 patients were treated as assigned by randomization. Periprocedural MI occurred in 34/935 (3.6%) of patients in the PCI group and 56/923 (6.1%) of patients in the CABG group [odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.93; P = 0.02]. Periprocedural MI was associated with SYNTAX score, COPD, cross-clamp duration and total procedure duration, and not using antegrade cardioplegia. By multivariable analysis, PMI was associated with cardiovascular death and all-cause death at 3 years [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.63, 95% CI 1.19-5.81; P = 0.02 and adjusted HR 2.28, 95% CI 1.22-4.29; P = 0.01, respectively]. The effect of PMI was consistent for PCI and CABG for cardiovascular death (Pinteraction = 0.56) and all-cause death (Pinteraction = 0.59). Peak post-procedure CK-MB ≥10× URL strongly predicted mortality, whereas lesser degrees of myonecrosis were not associated with prognosis. In the EXCEL trial, PMI was more common after CABG than PCI, and was strongly associated with increased 3-year mortality after controlling for potential confounders. Only extensive myonecrosis (CK-MB ≥10× URL) was prognostically important.