Unprotected Left Main Coronary Stenosis Research Articles

Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: 6 versus 12 Months.

Background/Objectives: For patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of an unprotected left main coronary artery (uLMCA) stenosis, the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remains a matter of debate. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of 6- versus 12-month DAPT duration in patients with PCI of an uLMCA and stable angina. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we included consecutive patients of our centre who underwent PCI of uLMCA stenosis for stable angina and who received DAPT with acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel for either 6 or 12 months. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at one year. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the primary endpoint, definite/probable stent thrombosis, and bleeding. Clinical outcomes were assessed by unadjusted analysis and by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: Out of 984 included patients, 339 (34.5%) received DAPT for 6 months and 645 (65.5%) for 12 months. The primary endpoint occurred in 51 patients (15.2%) in the 6-month group and in 104 (16.3%) in the 12-month group (p = 0.674). Incidences of stent thrombosis (0.9% versus 0.3%, p = 0.224) and BARC 3,4,5 bleeding (6% versus 5.8%, p = 0.808) were also comparable in both groups. We found no significant differences in the primary endpoint and its components or BARC 3,4,5 bleeding between 6 and 12 months. Conclusions: Our findings do not support the extension of DAPT beyond 6 months after PCI for uLMCA in patients with stable angina.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis patients. A Retrospective Study from Palestine

Percutaneous coronary intervention in unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis patients. A Retrospective Study from Palestine

Impact of Target Lesion Revascularization on Long-Term Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Left Main Disease

BackgroundAlthough target lesion revascularization (TLR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease is not rare, its timing of occurrence and prognostic impact on long-term mortality is uncertain. ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate TLR incidence over time and its impact on mortality after PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) for LMCA disease. MethodsUsing a pooled data from 4 multicenter observational registries (IRIS-DES [Interventional Cardiology Research Incorporation Society-Drug-Eluting Stents], IRIS-MAIN [Interventional Cardiology Research Incorporation Society-Left MAIN Revascularization], MAIN-COMPARE [Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization], and PRECOMBAT [PREmier of Randomized COMparison of Bypass Surgery versus AngioplasTy Using Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease]), we evaluated 1,397 patients with LMCA disease treated with DES and available long-term mortality data. The association between TLR and the 10-year risk of mortality was examined by multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression, with TLR as a time-varying covariate. ResultsDuring maximum follow-up of 10 years (median 6.8 years), TLR occurred in 118 patients and its 10-year cumulative incidence was 10.8%. TLR mostly occurred within 2 years after initial PCI and decreased over time: early-stage TLR (within 2 years) in 73 (61.9%) patients and late-stage TLR (beyond 2 years) in 45 (38.1%) patients. Among all TLR patients, 23 patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting and 95 underwent repeat PCI. In the time-varying multivariable Cox model, the presence of TLR was not significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality (adjusted HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.50-1.63; P = 0.73). ConclusionsAlthough the incidence of ischemia-driven TLR was mostly common within 2 years after left main PCI, TLR occurred steadily during the 10-year follow-up period. However, given that such patients were optimally revascularized, the prognostic impact of TLR on mortality was not substantial. (Evaluation of the First, Second, and New Drug-Eluting Stents in Routine Clinical Practice [IRIS-DES]; NCT01186133; Observational Study for Left Main Disease Treatment [IRIS-MAIN]; NCT01341327; Ten-Year Outcomes of Stents Versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease [MAIN COMPARE]; NCT02791412; Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease [PRECOMBAT]; NCT00422968)

P110 INTRAVASCULAR LITHOTRIPSY FOR THE TREATMENT OF SEVERELY CALCIFIED LEFT MAIN CORONARY STENOSIS

Abstract Background Even if pilot studies have been conducted to validate Intravascular Lithotripsy, most challenging cases were excluded, including unprotected Left Main (LM) coronary stenosis. Methods We retrospectively enrolled patients treated with IVL in a real–world multicenter registry from 21 centers among Italy and Spain from January 2020 to November 2021. The primary safety endpoint was freedom from major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiac death, target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis) at 30 days. The primary effectiveness endpoint was procedural success (defined as stent delivery with a residual stenosis <20% and without intra–procedural MACE). Secondary endpoint were 6–months and 12–months MACE rates. Results From a total amount of 470 patients enrolled in our registry, 41 underwent IVL to LM stenosis. Most of them were males (78.0%). The clinical presentation was acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in 41.4% of cases. Mechanical circulatory support was necessary in 4 cases (9.7%). IVL before stent implantation was planned in 90% of cases. The primary safety endpoint occurred in 97.6%. of patients. The primary effectiveness endpoint was achieved in 97.6% of cases. Interestingly, at 6 months and 12 months, no MACE was recorded. Conclusions Intravascular lithotripsy for the treatment of severely calcified Left Main stenosis seems to be a safe and effective option with very high procedural success rate and low MACE rate at follow–up.

Long-term Clinical Outcomes of Coronary Rotational Atherectomy for Specific Indications

Objective: This study compared the long-term outcomes between rotational atherectomy (RA) for specific indications and on-label use of RA for severely calcified coronary lesions. Methods: Data for patients who underwent RA between 2015 and 2020 in a single-center registry were analyzed. The specific indication group included patients with ostial lesions, unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis, chronic total occlusions, stent ablation, angulated lesions, and cardiac dysfunction, whereas patients with none of the above-mentioned characteristics were included in the on-label group. The primary endpoint was compared between groups. Results: A total of 176 patients in the on-label group and 125 patients in the specific indication group were included. Patient clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. The incidence of complications during the procedure was higher in the specific indication group than in the on-label group (20.0% vs. 10.8%, P=0.018). No significant difference was observed in in-hospital MACCE between groups (12.5% vs 9.7%, P=0.392). During 35 (10–57) months of follow-up, MACCE occurred in 46 patients (15.3%). The incidence of MACCE was much higher in the specific indication group than the on-label group (25.6% vs 13.6%, P=0.034). Conclusions: RA for specific indications, compared with on-label use, had a higher incidence of complications during the procedure and poorer long-term clinical outcomes.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: Mid-term outcomes of a single-center observational study

BackgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an appropriate alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for revascularization of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease in patients with low-to–intermediate anatomic complexity or when the patient refuses CABG even after adequate counselling by heart team. We assessed the safety, in-hospital and mid-term outcomes of ULMCA stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) in Indian patients. MethodsOur study was a retrospective analysis of patients who had undergone ULMCA PCI at a tertiary center, between March 2011 and February 2020. Clinical characteristics, procedural data, and follow-up data were analyzed. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) during the hospital stay and at follow-up. The median follow-up was 2.8 years (interquartile range: 1.5–4.1 years). Results661 patients (mean age, 63.5 ± 10.9 years) had undergone ULMCA PCI. The mean SYNTAX score was 27.9 ± 10.4 and the mean LVEF was 58.0 ± 11.1%. 3-vessel disease and distal lesions were noted in 54% and 70.6% patients, respectively. The incidence of in-hospital MACCE was 1.8% and the MACCE during follow-up was 11.5% (including 48 [8.4%] cardiac deaths). The overall survival rates after one, three, five, and nine years were 94%, 88%, 84%, and 82%, respectively. The multivariate analysis revealed that age >65 years and high SYNTAX scores were independent predictors of mid to long-term mortality. ConclusionULMCA PCI with DES is safe and has acceptable in-hospital and mid-term outcomes among patients with low-to–intermediate SYNTAX score.

Short- and Long-Term Prognosis of Intravascular Ultrasound-Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis Involving 24,783 Patients.

Background Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has potential benefits. This meta-analysis aimed to explore whether IVUS-guided PCI had better short- and long-term prognoses than angiography-guided PCI. Methods We retrieved studies from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Clinical trials including retrospective and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IVUS-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI were included. The patients were followed up after operation at 30 days, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years. The clinical outcomes were target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and MACEs, including stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, and all-cause death. The study population included patients with MI, coronary bifurcation lesions, short or long lesions, and unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (ULMCA). The quality of retrospective trials was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and the quality of randomized controlled trials was evaluated using the Jadad score. A total of 20 clinical trials met the criteria. Three trials were randomized controlled trials, while 17 were retrospective trials. Results A total of 24,783 patients were included. In observational trials, the OR of MACEs was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.38–0.62) in 30 days, 0.65 (95% CI: 0.58–0.73) in one year, 0.51 (95% CI: 0.36–0.71) in two years, and 0.45 (95% CI: 0.31–0.65) in three years. In patients with long coronary lesions, the OR of MACEs in 1 year was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.28–1.50). In patients with left main artery disease, the OR of MACEs in 3 years was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.26–0.67). Compared with angiography-guided PCI, IVUS-guided PCI was associated with a lower incidence of MACEs during the same following period. Conclusion Compared with angiography-guided PCI, IVUS-guided PCI has better performance in reducing the occurrence of MACEs.

Long-Term Clinical Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance in Stenting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

[Figure: see text].

Very Long-term Safety and Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents for Left Main Coronary Disease

BackgroundLimited data are available on the long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stents (DES) vs bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. MethodsIn this observational cohort of the Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty vs Surgical Revascularization (MAIN-COMPARE) registry, we evaluated patients with unprotected LMCA stenosis who received DES or BMS between January 2000 and June 2006. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 10 years. Adjusted outcomes were compared using propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weighting. ResultsA total of 1102 patients underwent DES (n = 784) or BMS (n = 318) during the study period. At 10 years, the adjusted rate of the primary outcome was significantly lower in DES group than in the BMS group (27.9% vs 37.0%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.94; P = 0.02). The adjusted 10-year mortality rate was significantly lower in DES group than in the BMS group (20.6% vs 29.6%; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.91; P = 0.01), whereas the 10-year rate of MI was similar between the 2 groups (9.9% vs 11.0%; HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.54-1.59; P = 0.78). DES use was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of target-lesion revascularization (10.2% vs 21.8%; HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.61; P < 0.001). ConclusionsIn this 10-year follow-up study in patients with LMCA disease, DES use was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of the composite of death or MI, mortality, and target-lesion revascularization, when compared with BMS.

Long-Term Outcomes After PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease According to Lesion Location.

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of lesion site (ostial or shaft vs. distal bifurcation) on long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. Long-term comparative data after PCI and CABG for LMCA disease according to lesion site are limited. Patients from the MAIN-COMPARE (Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization) registry were analyzed, comparing adverse outcomes (all-cause mortality [a composite outcome of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or stroke] and target vessel revascularization) between PCI and CABG according to LMCA lesion location during a median follow-up period of 12.0 years. In overall population, the adjusted risks for death and serious composite outcome were higher after PCI than after CABG for distal bifurcation disease, which was mainly separated beyond 5 years. These outcomes were not different for ostial or shaft disease. When comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) and CABG, the adjusted risks for death and serious composite outcome progressively diverged beyond 5 years after DES compared with CABG for distal bifurcation disease (death: hazard ratio: 1.78; 95% confidence interval: 1.22 to 2.59; composite outcome: hazard ratio: 1.94; 95% confidence interval: 1.35 to 2.79). This difference was driven mainly by PCI with a 2-stent technique for distal bifurcation. In contrast, the adjusted risks for these outcomes were similar between DES and CABG for ostial or shaft disease. Among patients with distal LMCA bifurcation disease, CABG showed lower mortality and serious composite outcome rates compared with DES beyond 5 years. However, there were no between-group differences in these outcomes among patients with ostial or shaft LMCA disease.

TCT CONNECT-305 Impact of Lesion Location on Cardiovascular Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis

TCT CONNECT-305 Impact of Lesion Location on Cardiovascular Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis

TCT CONNECT-307 Long-Term Outcomes After Coronary Intervention With Drug Eluting Stents for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis According to Diabetes Mellitus Status

TCT CONNECT-307 Long-Term Outcomes After Coronary Intervention With Drug Eluting Stents for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis According to Diabetes Mellitus Status

One-year clinical follow-up and outcomes in patients after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary stenosis: A single center study from Turkey

One-year clinical follow-up and outcomes in patients after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary stenosis: A single center study from Turkey

Stenting in unprotected left main coronary stenosis—“What no progress”?

There does not appear to be a difference in patient outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis whether using first- or second-generation drug elutting stent. This is despite increase in patients having more adjunctive procedures such as intravascular imaging and newer generation antiplatelet agents. This single-center study provokes questions as to why there has not been improvement in outcomes.

UTILIZATION OF HEMODYNAMIC SUPPORT DEVICES IN HIGH-RISK PCI: EXPERIENCE FROM A HIGH VOLUME CENTER

High-risk candidates for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) include patients with severe multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD), unprotected left main (LM) coronary artery stenosis, or last remaining patent conduit with a stenosis, especially in patients with a left ventricular ejection

CRT-100.80 Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis — Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Studies comparing outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis have shown conflicting results. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, [ClinicalTrials.gov][1] and the Cochrane Library were

Predictors of survival in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis.

Aim of this study was to investigate predictors of survival in unstable patients with high SYNTAX-1-score. In significant unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis, treatment options include percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). While CABG is recommended for stable patients with ULMCA stenosis and a SYNTAX-1-score > 32, PCI may be preferable in unstable or high operative risk patients. Retrospective single-center all-comers registry study. A total of 142 patients underwent ULMCA-PCI (~72.9 years, 23.2% females, 54.2% survival in 2-year follow-up), 84 of whom had a SYNTAX-1 > 32 (37.4 ± 12.8). Patients in the high-SYNTAX-1-group (score > 32) were more often in an acute condition compared to low-SYNTAX-2-group (score ≤ 32) including acute myocardial infarction (76.2% vs. 57.4%, p = .024), cardiogenic shock (48.2% vs. 14.8%, p = .001), or need for mechanical support (36.1% vs. 11.1%, p = .001). Survival was predicted by the acute condition including cardiogenic shock (OR 0.06 and 0.05) and myocardial infarction (OR 0.03 and 0.34) in both groups. Performance of the SYNTAX-1-score was limited in our patient collective in both groups (c-index 0.65 vs. 0.63) while SYNTAX-2-PCI-score performed better (c-index 0.67 vs. 0.67). EuroScore II had the best discriminative ability (c-index 0.87 vs. 0.78). The majority of patients undergoing ULMCA-PCI presented in acute conditions with high SYNTAX-1-score, and is therefore underrepresented in clinical trials. Prognosis was best predicted by the acute condition and the EuroScore II. These data suggest that therapy in unstable patients should be guided by clinical condition over the anatomical SYNTAX-1-score.

Long-term clinical outcomes after a percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease excluded from clinical trials.

Major randomized clinical trials assessing clinical outcomes in patients who underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for left main coronary artery disease excluded some high-risk subsets. Whether the effectiveness and safety of a percutaneous approach in this group of patients are comparable with those observed in clinical trials is unclear. We aimed to explore the long-term outcomes of contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES)-based revascularization for left main coronary artery disease in patients presenting with one or more clinical or angiographic characteristics who would have precluded inclusion in randomized trials. Between April 2003 and December 2011, 340 consecutive patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis of at least 50% who underwent successful PCI with DES at Sejong General Hospital (Bucheon, Republic of Korea) were included in this retrospective study. Patients were classified into the exclusion group (group E; n=120) and the inclusion group (group I; n=220) according to the prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria utilized in clinical trials. During the median follow-up of 86 (52-114) months, major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events occurred in 69 (31.4%) patients in group I and 46 (38.3%) patients in group E (P=0.155). In the propensity score-matched population, group E was not associated with a higher incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio: 1.42, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-2.65, P=0.758). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in five patients of group I, with no cases in group E. In our real-world registry, about a third of patients who underwent PCI for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis had one or more high-risk characteristics or comorbid conditions that represent exclusion criteria of previous randomized trials. PCI using DES is feasible in these patients.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis

BackgroundThe present study performed a meta-analysis of randomized and prospective trials to compare the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stents versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery (UPLM) stenosis. MethodsThe Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched until July 2017. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for quality assessment. ResultsA total of 19 studies with 16,900 participants were included. Pooled analysis showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.94; 95% CI 0.74-1.20) and cardiac death (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.74-1.47). However, subgroup analysis showed that PCI was associated with a low all-cause mortality rate at 30-day follow up (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.26-0.89). The stroke rate in PCI was lower in short-term follow up (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.88) and long-term follow up (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.27-0.47). On the other hand, PCI was associated with higher risk of myocardial infarction (OR 1.59; 95% CI 1.34-1.88), repeat revascularization (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.80-3.37) and target vessel revascularization (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.72-2.57) compared to CABG in the pooled analysis. ConclusionsThe current evidence suggests that the risk of stroke was significantly reduced in PCI compared to that in CABG. Therefore, PCI is the preferred treatment for patients with a high risk of stroke. Additionally, in short-term follow up, PCI was reported to be safe and effective for UPLM patients compared to CABG. However, CABG caused fewer complications long term.

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PCI of ULMS is frequently performed through TFA because of technical complexity and safety concern. Studies have shown comparable efficacy and safety of TRA versus TFA, however, these studies are few in number. We intended to compare the clinical outcomes between transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (ULMS) by performing a meta-analysis. A systematic search of database, including, PubMed, Web of Science, Google scholar and Cochrane Database were performed by two independent reviewers. Studies were included comparing "TRA" versus "TFA" in patients undergoing PCI in ULMS. The primary outcome was a procedural success rate. Secondary outcomes were major bleeding, access site complications, in-hospital and long term: major adverse cardiac events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular mortality. Eight studies were included in the analysis. The procedural success rate was 97.3% and there was no statistically significant difference between TRA and TFA groups (OR, 1.41 [CI 0.64, 3.12], I2 = 26%). The rates of access site complications (OR, 0.17 [CI 0.07, 0.41], I2 = 16%), major bleeding (OR, 0.39 [CI 0.17, 0.86], I2 = 0%) and all-cause mortality (OR, 0.28 [CI 0.12, 0.64], I2 = 0%) were lower in the TRA group. There were no significant differences in in-hospital and long term cardiovascular mortality, MI and MACE between the two groups. In contrast to TFA, TRA is associated with reduced bleeding and access site complications, with similar procedural success rate in patients undergoing PCI of ULMS.