Article

A meta-analysis of 3,773 patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention or surgery for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis.

Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California 90048, USA.
JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions (Impact Factor: 1.07). 09/2009; 2(8):739-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2009.05.020
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study sought to understand the total weight of evidence regarding outcomes in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis.
Following a diagnosis of significant ULMCA stenosis in an individual that is a candidate for surgery, CABG is recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, whereas PCI is not recommended (Class III).
Databases were searched for clinical studies that reported outcomes after PCI and CABG for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis. Ten studies were identified that included a total of 3,773 patients.
Meta-analysis showed that death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events) were similar in the PCI- and CABG-treated patients at 1 year (odds ratio [OR]: 0.84 [95% confidence interval: 0.57 to 1.22]), 2 years (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 0.81 to 1.94]), and 3 years (OR: 1.16 [95% CI: 0.68 to 1.98]). Target vessel revascularization was significantly higher in the PCI group at 1 year (OR: 4.36 [95% CI: 2.60 to 7.32]), 2 years (OR: 4.20 [95% CI: 2.21 to 7.97]), and 3 years (OR: 3.30 [95% CI: 0.96 to 11.33]). There was no difference in mortality in PCI- versus CABG-treated patients at 1 year (OR: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.70 to 1.41]), 2 years (OR: 1.27 [95% CI: 0.83 to 1.94]), and 3 years (OR: 1.11 [95% CI: 0.66 to 1.86]).
Our analysis reveals no difference in mortality or major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, for up to 3 years, between PCI and CABG for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis. However, PCI patients had a significantly higher risk of target vessel revascularization. In selected patients with ULMCA stenosis, PCI is emerging as an acceptable option.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
163 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Percutaneous coronary interventions are increasingly applied in patients with complex coronary anatomy, including those with stem disease. Coronary artery bypass surgery confers a mortality reduction over optimal medical therapy in high-risk patients with both left main or multivessel coronary artery disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Whether PCI might be preferred as an initial strategy in stable patients with multivessel disease and/or LM disease remains debatable. Emerging evidence suggests that patients with higher atheroma burden, as indicated by older age, presence of diabetes mellitus and extensive MVD in combination with LV dysfunction may derive the greatest benefit from CABG. PCI for unprotected LM with limited additional disease has been revised to a class II recommendation in the recent U.S. and European guidelines. An interdisciplinary team of both cardiac surgeons and cardiologists may optimize treatment in patients with intermediate-to-high disease severity characteristics. Ongoing trials will further strengthen evidence-base clinical decision making.
    International journal of cardiology 04/2011; 153(2):126-34. · 6.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Revascularisation is indicated in patients with left main stenosis (LMS) because of its known positive effect on long-term survival. Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has been the traditional procedure of choice for LMS patients, with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) being reserved for high-risk surgical patients or for those who have one or more functioning distal bypass grafts (i.e. "protected" left main PCI). Recent studies have re-examined the role of PCI in LMS, however, leading to a recent Class II recommendation for its use in selected patients. The SYNTAX Trial demonstrated that PCI can be performed with good results in the following patient subgroups: patients with isolated LMS, particularly if confined to the ostium; patients with concomitant LMS and isolated single vessel disease; patients with a SYNTAX score of <33; and patients who are at high risk for conventional CABG surgery. Patients with complex coronary anatomy (SYNTAX score >33) or those with concomitant double- or triple-vessel disease are more suited to CABG surgery. Patients who undergo PCI for LMS should be treated in specialized centers with surgical back-up, preferably with patient management decisions being made by a "heart team" consisting of at least one cardiologist and one cardiac surgeon. Ongoing studies are being performed using the hard clinical endpoints of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in order to further compare the results of PCI vs CABG in LMS patients.
    Herz 05/2011; 36(3):214-20. · 0.78 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This review covers the important publications in adult cardiac surgery in the last few years, including the current evidence base for surgical revascularisation and the use of off-pump surgery, bilateral internal mammary arteries and endoscopic vein harvesting. The changes in conventional aortic valve surgery are described alongside the outcomes of clinical trials and registries for transcatheter aortic valve implantation, and the introduction of less invasive and novel approaches of conventional aortic valve replacement surgery. Surgery for mitral valve disease is also considered, with particular reference to surgery for asymptomatic degenerative mitral regurgitation.
    Heart (British Cardiac Society) 10/2012; 98(19):1412-7. · 5.01 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
30 Downloads
Available from
Jun 5, 2014