AIMS: In this study, we compared the cumulative risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) of patients with distal unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis with those of patients with ostial and midshaft lesions treated with drug-eluting stent (DES). METHODS AND RESULTS: The survey promoted by the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology on ULMCA stenosis was an observational study involving 19 high-volume Italian centres. We enrolled 1111 patients with ULMCA stenosis treated with DES. Major adverse cardiac events were defined as death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Three hundred and thirty-four patients had ostial or midshaft lesions (group 1) and 777 bifurcations (group 2). The adjusted hazards ratio of the risk of 2 year MACE of patients in group 2 vs. patients in group 1 was 1.50 (P = 0.024). However, we observed that there was a significant difference between patients with bifurcations treated with two stents and those in group 1 (P = 0.001), but not between patients with bifurcations treated with one stent and those in group 1 (P = 0.38). CONCLUSION: Patients with bifurcations have a worse outcome than patients with ostial and midshaft lesions. However, the technique used to treat bifurcations has a significant impact on clinical outcomes.
AIMS: In this study, we compared the cumulative risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) of patients with distal unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis with those of patients with ostial and midshaft lesions treated with drug-eluting stent (DES). METHODS AND RESULTS: The survey promoted by the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology on ULMCA stenosis was an observational study involving 19 high-volume Italian centres. We enrolled 1111 patients with ULMCA stenosis treated with DES. Major adverse cardiac events were defined as death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Three hundred and thirty-four patients had ostial or midshaft lesions (group 1) and 777 bifurcations (group 2). The adjusted hazards ratio of the risk of 2 year MACE of patients in group 2 vs. patients in group 1 was 1.50 (P = 0.024). However, we observed that there was a significant difference between patients with bifurcations treated with two stents and those in group 1 (P = 0.001), but not between patients with bifurcations treated with one stent and those in group 1 (P = 0.38). CONCLUSION:Patients with bifurcations have a worse outcome than patients with ostial and midshaft lesions. However, the technique used to treat bifurcations has a significant impact on clinical outcomes.