OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine how practice patterns for unprotected left main stenosis have changed with the advent of drug-eluting stents (DES). BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unprotected left main coronary stenosis has been controversial. METHODS: We analyzed data submitted to the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2004 from 1,276,582 cardiac catheterizations at 417 institutions. Of these, 53,548 (4.2%) had left main stenosis >50% and no prior CABG. After excluding the unrevascularized, the patient sample (N = 32,562) was analyzed for PCI vs. CABG. Data was stratified by year/quarter, bare metal stent vs. DES, elective vs. urgent/emergent situations, LVEF < or > or =40%, and %left main and RCA stenosis. RESULTS: Of unprotected left main revascularizations from 2002 to 2004, PCI increased from 17.0% to 21.9%, while CABG decreased from 83.0% to 78.1% (P < 0.0001). In 2002, bare metal stents were used for all PCIs; in 2004, bare metal stent use was only 25.5%, while DES use was 74.5% (P < 0.0001). Of elective procedures, PCI rose from 19.1% to 27.5% while CABG fell from 80.9% to 72.5% (P < 0.0001). Similar trends, all significant, were seen in every clinical situation. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of DES, the rate of PCI for unprotected left main stenosis has risen, while CABG has declined. These findings are seen across varying clinical situations, including elective procedures. DES have rapidly and largely replaced bare metal stents for PCI of unprotected left mains. However, PCI is still chosen less frequently than CABG for unprotected left main revascularization.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine how practice patterns for unprotected left main stenosis have changed with the advent of drug-eluting stents (DES). BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unprotected left main coronary stenosis has been controversial. METHODS: We analyzed data submitted to the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2004 from 1,276,582 cardiac catheterizations at 417 institutions. Of these, 53,548 (4.2%) had left main stenosis >50% and no prior CABG. After excluding the unrevascularized, the patient sample (N = 32,562) was analyzed for PCI vs. CABG. Data was stratified by year/quarter, bare metal stent vs. DES, elective vs. urgent/emergent situations, LVEF < or > or =40%, and %left main and RCA stenosis. RESULTS: Of unprotected left main revascularizations from 2002 to 2004, PCI increased from 17.0% to 21.9%, while CABG decreased from 83.0% to 78.1% (P < 0.0001). In 2002, bare metal stents were used for all PCIs; in 2004, bare metal stent use was only 25.5%, while DES use was 74.5% (P < 0.0001). Of elective procedures, PCI rose from 19.1% to 27.5% while CABG fell from 80.9% to 72.5% (P < 0.0001). Similar trends, all significant, were seen in every clinical situation. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of DES, the rate of PCI for unprotected left main stenosis has risen, while CABG has declined. These findings are seen across varying clinical situations, including elective procedures. DES have rapidly and largely replaced bare metal stents for PCI of unprotected left mains. However, PCI is still chosen less frequently than CABG for unprotected left main revascularization.
Authors: Sanjay B Pandya; Young-Hak Kim; Sheridan N Meyers; Charles J Davidson; James D Flaherty; Duk-Woo Park; Anuj Mediratta; Karen Pieper; Eric Reyes; Robert O Bonow; Seung-Jung Park; Nirat Beohar Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Javier A Valle; Hector Tamez; J Dawn Abbott; Issam D Moussa; John C Messenger; Stephen W Waldo; Kevin F Kennedy; Frederick A Masoudi; Robert W Yeh Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Anjan K Chakrabarti; Maria V Grau-Sepulveda; Sean O'Brien; Cassandra Abueg; Angelo Ponirakis; Elizabeth Delong; Eric Peterson; Lloyd W Klein; Kirk N Garratt; William S Weintraub; C Michael Gibson Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Rory S Bricker; Thomas J Glorioso; Omar Jawaid; Mary E Plomondon; Javier A Valle; Ehrin J Armstrong; Stephen W Waldo Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-12-07 Impact factor: 5.501