Literature DB >> 27585503

Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Bypass Surgery in Patients With Unprotected Left Main Disease.

Rafael Cavalcante1, Yohei Sotomi2, Cheol W Lee3, Jung-Min Ahn3, Vasim Farooq4, Hiroki Tateishi5, Erhan Tenekecioglu5, Yaping Zeng5, Pannipa Suwannasom2, Carlos Collet2, Felipe N Albuquerque5, Yoshinobu Onuma5, Seung-Jung Park3, Patrick W Serruys6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Currently available randomized data on the comparison between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary disease (LMD) lacks statistical power due to low numbers of patients enrolled.
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed long-term outcomes of PCI and CABG for the treatment of LMD in specific subgroups according to disease anatomic complexity.
METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of individual patient-level data of the LMD patients included in the PRECOMBAT (Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) and SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) trials. Incidences of major adverse cardiac events were assessed at 5 years follow-up.
RESULTS: Study population comprised 1,305 patients. The incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 5 years was 28.3% in the PCI group and 23.0% in the CABG group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01 to 1.55; p = 0.045). This difference is mainly driven by a higher rate of repeat revascularization associated with PCI (HR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.38 to 2.47; p < 0.001). The 2 strategies showed similar rates of the safety composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (p = 0.45). In patients with isolated LM or LM + 1-vessel disease, PCI was associated with a 60% reduction in all-cause mortality (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.83; p = 0.029) and 67% reduction in cardiac mortality (HR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.88; p = 0.025) when compared with CABG.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unprotected LMD, CABG, and PCI result in similar rates of the safety composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. In patients with isolated LM or LM + 1-vessel disease, PCI is associated with lower all-cause and cardiac mortality when compared to CABG.
Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  coronary artery bypass graft surgery; left main coronary artery disease; long-term outcomes; percutaneous coronary intervention; randomized controlled trials

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27585503     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.06.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  24 in total

1.  Impact of left main coronary artery disease on long-term mortality in patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation.

Authors:  Se Hun Kang; Cheol Whan Lee; Seunghee Baek; Pil Hyung Lee; Jung-Min Ahn; Duk-Woo Park; Soo-Jin Kang; Seung-Whan Lee; Young-Hak Kim; Seong-Wook Park; Seung-Jung Park
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  Climbing the hill of left main coronary artery revascularization: percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft?

Authors:  Ciro Indolfi; Carmen Spaccarotella; Masakazu Yasuda; Salvatore De Rosa
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Triaging patients with left main disease after the EXCEL and NOBLE trials: the everlasting saga of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Davide Capodanno
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in complex coronary artery disease: looking beyond clinical end-points.

Authors:  Aakash Garg; Hitesh Raheja; Marc Cohen
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-12

Review 5.  Current Use and Trends in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Percutaneous Intervention.

Authors:  Harsha S Nagarajarao; Chandra P Ojha; Venkatachalam Mulukutla; Ahmed Ibrahim; Adriana C Mares; Timir K Paul
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2020-02-08       Impact factor: 2.931

6.  Contemporary Use and Trends in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States: An Analysis of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Research to Practice Initiative.

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

7.  Total revascularization for an epsilon right coronary artery and severe left main disease combined with profound cardiogenic shock: A case report.

Authors:  Hsiu-Yu Fang; Wei-Chieh Lee; Chiung-Jen Wu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 1.889

8.  Percutaneous coronary intervention versus cardiac bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease: A trial sequential analysis.

Authors:  Yicong Ye; Ming Yang; Shuyang Zhang; Yong Zeng
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.817

9.  Percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in left main coronary artery disease an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Lei Gao; Yuqi Liu; Zhijun Sun; Yabin Wang; Feng Cao; Yundai Chen
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-08-10

10.  Concomitant multi-vessel disease is associated with a lower procedural death rate in patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions within the left main coronary artery (from the ORPKI registry).

Authors:  Rafał Januszek; Artur Dziewierz; Zbigniew Siudak; Tomasz Rakowski; Tomasz Kameczura; Tomasz Tokarek; Dariusz Dudek; Stanisław Bartuś
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2019-06-22       Impact factor: 3.318

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.