Left Main Revascularization Research Articles

Deferral of left main coronary artery revascularization via IVUS or coronary physiology - Long-term outcomes from the SWEDEHEART registry

BackgroundIntravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guides deferral decision-making regarding the left main coronary artery (LMCA) and improves outcomes. Further studies regarding coronary physiology to guide revascularization in the LMCA are needed. Our aim was to evaluate the outcome of LMCA deferral using IVUS or coronary physiology via instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR). MethodsBetween January 2014 and February 2022, patients undergoing evaluation with either IVUS or coronary physiology in the LMCA were included from the SWEDEHEART registry. Exclusion criteria were a minimum luminal area < 6 mm2, iFR ≤ 0.89, FFR ≤ 0.80, ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention of lesions in the LMCA, proximal left anterior descending artery, and proximal circumflex artery, planned elective revascularization, and planned valvular surgery. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. Kaplan−Meier event rates and multivariable Poisson regression were used for the statistical analyses. ResultsDeferral of revascularization in the LMCA was performed in 1552 patients, 33.6 % with IVUS and 66.4 % with coronary physiology (iFR 11.3 % vs. FFR 55.0 %). The median follow-up time was 2.7 years. No significant difference was seen in MACE (IVUS 40.2 % vs. coronary physiology 35.5 %; adjusted RR: 1.18; 95 %CI: 0.97–1.44; p = 0.09). The results were consistent across all investigated subgroups. The rate of all-cause death was higher in the IVUS group (adjusted RR: 1.38; 95 %CI: 1.03–1.83; p = 0.03). ConclusionsDeferral of coronary revascularization in LMCA lesions using IVUS or coronary physiology did not differ in our combined endpoint. We observed a higher risk of all-cause death using IVUS.

Left main revascularization guidelines: navigating the data.

This article explores recent developments in left main revascularization, with a focus on appraising the latest American and European guidelines. Recent pooled data analysis from four major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for left main coronary artery stenosis indicate an advantage for CABG over PCI in regard to freedom from major adverse cardiovascular events, despite no significant difference in mortality observed at 5 years. Additional data support the use of CABG for patients with left ventricular dysfunction, complex left main lesions, diffuse coronary disease, and diabetes. The data underpinning the guidelines on each revascularization modality (PCI versus CABG) must consider factors such as lesion complexity, diabetes, and left ventricular dysfunction. Additionally, the findings of the four major RCTs upon which the guidelines are based must be ascertained in light of the latest advancements in these revascularization techniques.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Disease With and Without Diabetes: Findings From a Pooled Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Diabetes may be associated with differential outcomes in patients undergoing left main coronary revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this study was to investigate outcomes in patients with left main disease with and without diabetes randomized to PCI versus CABG. Individual patient data were pooled from 4 trials (SYNTAX [Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery], PRECOMBAT [Premier of Randomized Comparison of Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease], NOBLE [Nordic-Baltic-British Left Main Revascularisation Study], and EXCEL [Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization]) that randomized patients with left main disease to PCI or CABG. Patients were considered suitable for either approach. Patients were categorized by diabetes status. Kaplan-Meier event rates, Cox model hazard ratios, and interactions were assessed. Among 4393 patients, 1104 (25.1%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes experienced higher rates of 5-year death (158/1104 [Kaplan-Meier rate, 14.7%] versus 297/3289 [9.3%]; P<0.001), spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI; 67/1104 [6.7%] versus 114/3289 [3.7%]; P<0.001), and repeat revascularization (189/1104 [18.5%] versus 410/3289 [13.2%]; P<0.001). Rates of all-cause mortality did not differ after PCI versus CABG in those with (84/563 [15.3%] versus 74/541 [14.1%]; hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.82-1.52]) or without (155/1634 [9.7%] versus 142/1655 [8.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.86-1.36; PintHR=0.87) diabetes. Rates of stroke within 1 year were lower with PCI versus CABG in the entire population, with no heterogeneity based on diabetes status (PintHR=0.51). The 5-year rates of spontaneous MI and repeat coronary revascularization were higher after PCI regardless of diabetes status (spontaneous MI: 45/563 [8.9%] versus 22/541 [4.4%] in diabetes and 82/1634 [5.3%] versus 32/1655 [2.1%] in no diabetes, PintHR=0.47; repeat revascularization: 127/563 [24.5%] versus 62/541 [12.4%] in diabetes and 254/1634 [16.3%] versus 156/1655 [10.1%] in no diabetes, PintHR=0.18). For spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization, there were greater absolute risk differences beyond 1 year in patients with diabetes (4.9% and 9.9%) compared with those without (2.1% and 4.3%; PintARD=0.047 and 0.016). In patients with left main disease considered equally suitable for PCI or CABG and with largely low to intermediate SYNTAX scores, diabetes was associated with higher rates of death and cardiovascular events through 5 years. Compared with CABG, PCI resulted in no difference in the risk of death and a lower risk of early stroke regardless of diabetes status, and a higher risk of spontaneous MI and repeat coronary revascularization, with larger late absolute excess risks in patients with diabetes. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01205776, NCT0146651, NCT00422968, and NCT00114972.

Impact of Incomplete Revascularization After PCI in Left Main Disease: The EXCEL Trial.

The importance of complete revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with left main coronary artery disease is uncertain. We investigated the clinical impact of complete revascularization in patients with left main coronary artery disease undergoing PCI in the EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization). Composite rates of death or myocardial infarction (MI) following PCI during 5-year follow-up were examined in 903 patients based on core laboratory definitions of anatomic and functional complete revascularization, residual SYNTAX score (The Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery), and residual Jeopardy Score (rJS). The risk of death or MI did not vary based on anatomic, functional, or residual SYNTAX score complete revascularization but did differ according to the rJS (5-year rates 17.6%, 19.5%, and 38.9% with rJS 0, 2, and ≥4, respectively; P=0.006). The higher rate of death or MI with rJS≥4 versus rJS≤2 was driven conjointly by increased mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.11-4.71]; P=0.02) and spontaneous MI (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.89 [95% CI, 1.17-7.17]; P=0.02). The most common location for untreated severe stenoses in the rJS≥4 group was the left circumflex artery (LCX), and the post-PCI absence, compared with the presence, of any untreated lesion with diameter stenosis ≥70% in the LCX was associated with reduced 5-year rates of death or MI (18.9% versus 35.2%; hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.32-0.74]; P<0.001). The risk was the highest for residual ostial/proximal LCX lesions. Among patients undergoing PCI in EXCEL trial, incomplete revascularization according to the rJS was associated with increased rates of death and spontaneous MI. Post-PCI untreated high-grade lesions in the LCX (especially the ostial/proximal LCX) drove these outcomes. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01205776.

Effect of the Prognostic Nutrition Index on Long-Term Outcomes in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization

Effect of the Prognostic Nutrition Index on Long-Term Outcomes in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization

Abstract 18976: In-Hospital Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Protected Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Percutaneous Left Ventricle Assist Device Protection

Introduction: Left main disease (LMCA) is a known risk factor for patients’ poor outcomes. Percutaneous revascularization of LMCA in heart failure patients is associated with a particularly high periprocedural risk. Percutaneously introduced left ventricle assist devices (pLVAD) are a potential tool to improve patient outcomes in these high-risk procedures. Hypothesis: Our study aimed to assess short-term clinical outcomes of protected left main percutaneous coronary intervention with the use of a pLVAD. Methods: A prospective registry of patients with chronic heart failure, undergoing protected LMCA PCI included 66 patients, 89% male, the median age of 71.5 y.o, 40 (60.6%) after prior myocardial infarction, 31 (47%) after prior PCI and 12 (18.2%) after CABG, with CTO RCA in 17 (25.6%) of cases. Percutaneous LVAD was used in all patients, 72% access site was the right femoral artery, additional plaque modification techniques were used in 46 (69.7%) patients, IVL was applied in 25 (37.9%) of cases and high-speed rotational or orbital atherectomy was used in 21 (31.2%) of cases. Median of 3 [2;4] DES was implanted. Results: During the in-hospital follow-up, a significant improvement of the left ventricle ejection fraction was observed (median LVEF 30% post PCI vs22% at baseline, p&lt;0.001) as well as a significant decrease of NTproBNP levels (765 [IQR: 194, 6,370] at discharge vs 7113 pg/ml [IQR:1,945, 15,646] at baseline, p=0.01]. There was 1 in-hospital death due to cardiogenic shock. A safety monitoring revealed 11 hematomas, including 3 cases that needed vascular surgery. Bleeding according to BARC 3a was recorded in 17/66 (28%) and BARC 3b in 3/66 (5%) of cases. Conclusions: Percutaneous LVAD support is a feasible method to perform protected left main PCI with a good safety profile when applied by experienced operators A significant improvement of the LVEF can be observed after left main revascularization Further research is needed to confirm the presented results.

Observational studies are needed to complete the body of evidence for left main coronary artery disease revascularization strategies.

Observational studies are needed to complete the body of evidence for left main coronary artery disease revascularization strategies.

TCT-764 Left Main Percutaneous or Surgical Revascularization and Subsequent Risk of Acute Kidney Injury: The LUCKY Registry

TCT-764 Left Main Percutaneous or Surgical Revascularization and Subsequent Risk of Acute Kidney Injury: The LUCKY Registry

Comparing results of bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for left main disease by surgical revascularization pump strategy

ObjectiveWe performed a post hoc analysis of the Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial to determine the effect an on-versus off-pump strategy had on outcomes when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention. MethodsAll randomized patients in EXCEL (n = 1905) were included. The outcomes of interest were the primary end point composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction; the composite study end point or ischemia-driven revascularization; and the rate of death from any cause at 5 years. Event rates were based on Kaplan–Meier estimates in time-to-first-event analyses. ResultsPropensity matching resulted in groups of 1142 patients (571 each) for on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention and 472 patients (236 each) for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention. In the on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention matched groups, the composite end point was similar (18.0% vs 22.1%, P = .19) and the composite end point or ischemia-driven revascularization (23.3% vs 31.0%, P = .01) was lower, and mortality (7.6% vs 11.8%, P = .025) was lower in the on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting group at 5 years. In the off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention matched groups, the composite end point (19.4% vs 22.2%, P = .47), composite end point or ischemia-driven revascularization (25.9% vs 34.2%, P = .07), and mortality (12.5% vs 14.2%, P = .59) were similar at 5 years. ConclusionsIn the EXCEL trial, on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a decreased 5-year rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization, and decreased mortality when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas outcomes of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting were similar to percutaneous coronary intervention.

Percutaneous coronary intervention vs. coronary artery bypass grafting in emergency and non-emergency unprotected left-main revascularization

BackgroundThe optimal revascularization strategy in patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease in the emergency setting is still controversial. Thus, we aimed to compare the outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with and without emergent LMCA disease.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included 2138 patients recruited from 14 centers between 2015 and 2019. We compared patients with emergent LMCA revascularization who underwent PCI (n = 264) to patients who underwent CABG (n = 196) and patients with non-emergent LMCA revascularization with PCI (n = 958) to those who underwent CABG (n = 720). The study outcomes were in-hospital and follow-up all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).ResultsEmergency PCI patients were older and had a significantly higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease, lower ejection fraction, and higher EuroSCORE than CABG patients. CABG patients had significantly higher SYNTAX scores, multivessel disease, and ostial lesions. In patients presenting with arrest, PCI had significantly lower MACCE (P = 0.017) and in-hospital mortality (P = 0.016) than CABG. In non-emergent revascularization, PCI was associated with lower MACCE in patients with low (P = 0.015) and intermediate (P < 0.001) EuroSCORE. PCI was associated with lower MACCE in patients with low (P = 0.002) and intermediate (P = 0.008) SYNTAX scores. In non-emergent revascularization, PCI was associated with reduced hospital mortality in patients with intermediate (P = 0.001) and high (P = 0.002) EuroSCORE compared to CABG. PCI was associated with lower hospital mortality in patients with low (P = 0.031) and intermediate (P = 0.001) SYNTAX scores. At a median follow-up time of 20 months (IQR: 10–37), emergency PCI had lower MACCE compared to CABG [HR: 0.30 (95% CI 0.14–0.66), P < 0.003], with no significant difference in all-cause mortality between emergency PCI and CABG [HR: 1.18 (95% CI 0.23–6.08), P = 0.845].ConclusionsPCI could be advantageous over CABG in revascularizing LMCA disease in emergencies. PCI could be preferred for revascularization of non-emergent LMCA in patients with intermediate EuroSCORE and low and intermediate SYNTAX scores.

How to treat left main coronary artery disease: the complementary lessons from trials and registries.

Graphical AbstractOpen in new tabDownload slideThe many factors, the knowns and unknowns, surrounding left main revascularization therapy. DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; RCT, randomized controlled trial; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; HBR, high bleeding risk; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery for Left Main Disease in Patients With and Without Acute Coronary Syndromes

Patients with left main coronary artery disease presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) represent a high-risk and understudied subgroup of patients with atherosclerosis. To assess clinical outcomes after PCI vs CABG in patients with left main disease with vs without ACS. Data were pooled from 4 trials comparing PCI with drug-eluting stents vs CABG in patients with left main disease who were considered equally suitable candidates for either strategy (SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE, and EXCEL). Patients were categorized as presenting with or without ACS. Kaplan-Meier event rates through 5 years and Cox model hazard ratios were generated, and interactions were tested. Patients were enrolled in the individual trials from 2004 through 2015. Individual patient data from the trials were pooled and reconciled from 2020 to 2021, and the analyses pertaining to the ACS subgroup were performed from March 2022 through February 2023. The primary outcome was death through 5 years. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI), procedural MI, stroke, and repeat revascularization. Among 4394 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [59-73] years; 3371 [76.7%] male and 1022 [23.3%] female) randomized to receive PCI or CABG, 1466 (33%) had ACS. Patients with ACS were more likely to have diabetes, prior MI, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50%, and higher SYNTAX scores. At 30 days, patients with ACS had higher all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 3.40; 95% CI, 1.81-6.37; P < .001) and cardiovascular death (HR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.69-6.08; P < .001) compared with those without ACS. Patients with ACS also had higher rates of spontaneous MI (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.25-2.31; P < .001) through 5 years. The rates of all-cause mortality through 5 years with PCI vs CABG were 10.9% vs 11.5% (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68-1.27) in patients with ACS and 11.3% vs 9.6% (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.95-1.50) in patients without ACS (P = .22 for interaction). The risk of early stroke was lower with PCI vs CABG (ACS: HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.12-1.25; no ACS: HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16-0.75), whereas the 5-year risks of spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization were higher with PCI vs CABG (spontaneous MI: ACS: HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.09-2.77; no ACS: HR, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.94-4.72; repeat revascularization: ACS: HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.19-2.09; no ACS: HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.54-2.33), regardless of ACS status. Among largely stable patients undergoing left main revascularization and with predominantly low to intermediate coronary anatomical complexity, those with ACS had higher rates of early death. Nonetheless, rates of all-cause mortality through 5 years were similar with PCI vs CABG in this high-risk subgroup. The relative advantages and disadvantages of PCI vs CABG in terms of early stroke and long-term spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization were consistent regardless of ACS status. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00114972, NCT00422968, NCT01496651, NCT01205776.

Outcomes of Left Main Revascularization in Patients with Anemia: Gulf Left Main Registry

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of baseline anemia and anemia following revascularization on outcomes in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. Methods: This was a retrospective, multicenter, observational study conducted between January 2015 and December 2019. The data on patients with ULMCA who underwent revascularization through percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) were stratified by the hemoglobin level at baseline into anemic and non-anemic groups to compare in-hospital events. The pre-discharge hemoglobin following revascularization was categorized into very low (<80 g/L for men and women), low (≥80 and ≤119 g/L for women and ≤129 g/L for men), and normal (≥130 g/L for men and ≥120 g/L for women) to assess impact on follow-up outcomes. Results: A total of 2,138 patients were included, 796 (37.2%) of whom had anemia at baseline. A total of 319 developed anemia after revascularization and moved from being non-anemic at baseline to anemic at discharge. There was no difference in hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) and mortality between CABG and PCI in anemic patients. At a median follow-up time of 20 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 27), patients with pre-discharge anemia who underwent PCI had a higher incidence of congestive heart failure (CHF) (p < 0.0001), and those who underwent CABG had significantly higher follow-up mortality (HR: 9.85 (95% CI: 2.53–38.43), p = 0.001). Conclusion: In this Gulf LM study, baseline anemia had no impact upon in-hospital MACCE and total mortality following revascularization (PCI or CABG). However, pre-discharge anemia is associated with worse outcomes after ULMCA disease revascularization, with significantly higher all-cause mortality in patients who had CABG, and a higher incidence of CHF in PCI patients, at a median follow-up time of 20 months (IQR: 27).

Applicability of the EXCEL Trial Criteria to an All-Comers Real-World Cohort of Unprotected Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The Evaluation of XIENCE versus EXCEL (Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial is the largest randomized study comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with second-generation drug-eluting stents and bypass surgery in unprotected left main disease (ULMD). Our aim was to assess which proportion of patients from a contemporary all-comer population of ULMD PCI would be eligible for the EXCEL trial and whether these patients show different long-term outcomes than the rest of the ULMD population. A total of 246 consecutive patients underwent ULMD PCI between January 2018 and December 2021 and were retrospectively analyzed. After application of the EXCEL trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, 98 patients (39%) were allocated to the "EXCEL-like" cohort and 148 to the "non-EXCEL-like." Baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were substantially comparable. The mean baseline SYNTAX score was lower in the EXCEL-like patients than the non-EXCEL-like group (20.1 ± 7.1 vs 23.0 ± 11.2, p=0.025), with the latter also showing a higher degree of incomplete revascularization (residual SYNTAX score >8:11% vs 26%, p=0.005). At 1year, the cumulative major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events rate was 7% for the EXCEL-like and 17% for the non-EXCEL-like patients, respectively (p=0.03). At the last follow-up available, the significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events rate persisted (19% vs 37%, p=0.02) and a significant difference in any unplanned revascularization was also shown (1.5% vs 13%, p=0.04). In conclusion, in a contemporary real-world cohort of ULMD PCI, only a minority of patients could be enrolled in the EXCEL trial; the EXCEL-like patients, in our population, showed less clinical events at long-term follow-up than the cohort of patients who were ineligible for EXCEL, despite comparable baseline cardiovascular profiles; these findings may challenge a broad external applicability of the results of the EXCEL trial in routine clinical activity.

Impact of Periprocedural Adverse Events After PCI and CABG on 5-Year Mortality: The EXCEL Trial

BackgroundThe relative risks for different periprocedural major adverse events (MAE) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on subsequent mortality have not been described. ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the association between periprocedural MAE occurring within 30 days postprocedure and early and late mortality after left main coronary artery revascularization by PCI and CABG. MethodsIn the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, patients with left main disease were randomized to PCI vs CABG. The associations between 12 prespecified nonfatal MAE and subsequent 5-year all-cause and cardiovascular death in 1,858 patients were examined using logistic regression. ResultsOne or more nonfatal MAE occurred in 111 of 935 patients (11.9%) after PCI and 419 of 923 patients (45.4%) after CABG (P < 0.0001). Patients with MAE were older and had more baseline comorbidities. Within 5 years, all-cause death occurred in 117 and 87 patients after PCI and CABG, respectively. Experiencing an MAE was a strong independent predictor of 5-year mortality after both PCI (adjusted OR: 4.61; 95% CI: 2.71-7.82) and CABG (adjusted OR: 3.25; 95% CI: 1.95-5.41). These associations were present within the first 30 days and between 30 days and 5 years postprocedure. Major or minor bleeding with blood transfusion ≥2 U was an independent predictor of 5-year mortality after both procedures. Stroke, unplanned revascularization for ischemia, and renal failure were significantly associated with mortality only after CABG. ConclusionsIn the EXCEL trial, nonfatal periprocedural MAE were strongly associated with early and late mortality after both PCI and CABG for left main disease.

Left Main Revascularization in Perspective.

Left main disease represents the most serious anatomic subset of coronary artery disease. Revascularization indications have changed as the methods of increasing blood flow to heart have improved. While randomized studies supply the most important information for the formulation of the society guidelines, registry studies provide supplemental information to guideline writing committees. The Gulf Left Main Registry study has published five papers in addition to the article on anemic undergoing left main revascularization in this Journal. A summary of all papers is reviewed. The results of these six papers provide information that might especially help clinicians in this region to counsel their patients on which form of revascularization to choose. In general, these papers favor percutaneous revascularization more than would be suggested in the guidelines. Signals from these papers provide grist for future investigations.

Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization.

Left main (LM) coronary artery disease accounts for approximately 4-6% of all percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). There has been mounting evidence indicating the non-inferiority of LM PCI as a revascularization option, particularly for those with a low SYNTAX score. The EXCEL and NOBEL trials have shaped current guidelines. The European Society of Cardiology assigned a class 2a (level of evidence B) for isolated LM disease involving the shaft and ostium and a class IIb (level of evidence B) for isolated LM disease involving the bifurcation or additional two- or three-vessel disease and a SYNTAX score <32. However, data on the use of a single stent or an upfront two-stent strategy for distal LM disease are conflicting, wherein the EBC Main trial reported similar outcomes with a stepwise provisional approach and the DKCRUSH-V trial reported better outcomes with an upfront two-stent strategy using the 'double-kissing' crush technique. Although several studies have noted better immediate results with image-guided PCI, there are few data on outcomes in LM disease specifically. In fact, the uptake of imaging in the aforementioned landmark trials was only 40%. More importantly, the role of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been less well studied in LM PCI. Indiscriminate use of MCS for LM PCI has been noted in clinical practice. Trials evaluating the benefit of MCS in high-risk PCI demonstrated no benefit. This review highlights contemporary trials as they apply to current practice in LM PCI.

Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization in Patients with Impaired Renal Function: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Introduction: The evidence about the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease and impaired renal function is limited. Thus, we aimed to compare the outcomes of LMCA disease revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] vs. coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) in patients with and without impaired renal function. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 2,138 patients recruited from 14 centers between 2015 and 2,019. We compared patients with impaired renal function who had PCI (n= 316) to those who had CABG (n = 121) and compared patients with normal renal function who had PCI (n = 906) to those who had CABG (n = 795). The study outcomes were in-hospital and follow-up major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Results: Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the risk of in-hospital MACCE was significantly higher in CABG compared to PCI in patients with impaired renal function (odds ratio [OR]: 8.13 [95% CI: 4.19–15.76], p < 0.001) and normal renal function (OR: 2.59 [95% CI: 1.79–3.73]; p < 0.001). There were no differences in follow-up MACCE between CABG and PCI in patients with impaired renal function (HR: 1.14 [95% CI: 0.71–1.81], p = 0.585) and normal renal function (HR: 1.12 [0.90–1.39], p = 0.312). Conclusions: PCI could have an advantage over CABG in revascularization of LMCA disease in patients with impaired renal function regarding in-hospital MACCE. The follow-up MACCE was comparable between PCI and CABG in patients with impaired and normal renal function.

1127 APPLICABILITY OF THE EXCEL TRIAL CRITERIA IN AN ALL-COMERS REAL-WORLD POPULATION OF UNPROTECTED LEFT MAIN PCI

Abstract Background The Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial is the largest randomized trial comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with 2nd generation drug eluting stents (DES) and bypass surgery in unprotected left main disease (ULMD). Our aim was to assess which proportion of patients from a contemporary all-comers population of ULMD-PCI would be eligible for the EXCEL trial and whether these patients showed different short- and long-term outcomes than the rest of the population. Methods and results A total of 246 consecutive patients that underwent ULMD-PCI between January 2018 and December 2021, were retrospectively analyzed. After application of the EXCEL trial inclusion ed exclusion criteria, 98 patients (38.9%) were allocated in the "Excel-like" cohort and 148 in the "Non-Excel-like". Baseline characteristics of the two groups were substantially comparable. Mean baseline Syntax Score (SS) was significantly lower in the "Excel-like" patients (Excel 20.1 ± 7.1 VS Non-Excel 23.0 ± 11.2; p-value = 0.025) than the "Non-Excel-like" group with the latter showing also a higher degree of incomplete revascularization (rSS &amp;gt;8: Excel 11.2%.VS Non-Excel 25.7%; p-value 0.005). At 1 year the cumulative major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCEs) rates were 7.2% and 17.2% for the "Excel-like" and "Non-Excel-like" patients respectively (Log-rank p-value = 0.03). At last follow-up available the significant difference in MACCEs rate persisted (Excel 19.3%, VS Non-Excel 37%, Log-rank p-value 0.02) and a significant difference in any unplanned revascularization was also shown (Excel 1.5% VS Non-Excel 12.6%; p-value 0.04). Conclusions in a contemporary real-world cohort of ULMD-PCI only a minority of the patients could be enrolled in the EXCEL trial. This cohort of patients showed a more extensive revascularization and less clinical events at long-term follow-up despite comparable burden of cardiovascular risk factors and atherosclerotic coronary disease. These findings "challenge" the external applicability of the results of the Excel trial in the routine clinical activity.

Outcomes of Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery

Background: Our study's major goal is to examine how several existing ULMCAD Currently, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting are the most common non-invasive methods of treating (unprotected left predominant) CAD in the United States (CABG). Place of study and duration: Conducted at the department of Cardiology, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar for the Duration from July 1 -2016 to Jun 30 -2017. Methods and Results: The effects of PCI and CABG have been analyzed in 558 patients with ULMCAD in a row (suggest age 71.9 years, eighty-one percent male). The most important end results were a total prevalence of mortality, nonfatal MI, and stroke. Diabetes prevalence increased to 29 percent, whereas acute coronary syndrome increased to 56 percent and 11 became the standard Euro SCORE. An extremely complicated form of coronary disease affected 50% of the patients (SYNTAX score &gt;32). Up to four years after PCI and CABG, the primary composite outcomes were equivalent (15, 53, 1 percent vs. 17,126.6 percent; p=0.585). Additionally, the impacts on the top findings were equivalent for the 2 cohorts with similar propensity ratings. Revascularization was required in 5.5 percent of PCI patients and 1.5 percent of CABG patients, respectively, due to ischemia (p=0.010). Conclusions: According to our local network of ULMCAD patients, the long-term scientific outcomes of the present PCI or CABG revascularization procedures were equivalent. No matter the intricacy of the coronary artery.