Harshith R Avula1, Andrew N Rassi2. 1. Division of Cardiology, Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, 2238 Geary Blvd, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA. 2. Division of Cardiology, Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, 2238 Geary Blvd, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA. andrew.rassi@kp.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the standard of care, advances in stenting technology and procedural technique are changing the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of severe left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. We review contemporary evidence comparing PCI and CABG for the treatment of severe LMCA disease, discuss optimal techniques during left main PCI, and provide guidance on studied revascularization strategies within specific patient subgroups. RECENT FINDINGS: Results from randomized control trials of patients treated with PCI or CABG for severe LMCA disease demonstrate comparable short- and mid-term rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke, but increased rates of repeat or target-vessel revascularization after PCI. Though extended follow-up data has suggested lower long-term rates of MI and stroke in patients with severe LMCA disease treated with CABG, results from patients undergoing PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) demonstrate non-inferiority in these outcomes. These findings are generalizable to patients with severe LMCA disease having low to intermediate anatomic complexity. Intravascular ultrasound and double kissing (DK) crush stenting also reduce adverse event rates among patients undergoing left main PCI and improve long-term outcomes. In patients with severe LMCA disease having low to intermediate anatomic complexity, both CABG and PCI with second-generation DES are effective methods of revascularization with comparable long-term rates of death, MI, and stroke. The roles of multi-vessel coronary artery disease and anatomic complexity on long-term outcomes after CABG or PCI for severe LMCA disease remain under investigation.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the standard of care, advances in stenting technology and procedural technique are changing the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of severe left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. We review contemporary evidence comparing PCI and CABG for the treatment of severe LMCA disease, discuss optimal techniques during left main PCI, and provide guidance on studied revascularization strategies within specific patient subgroups. RECENT FINDINGS: Results from randomized control trials of patients treated with PCI or CABG for severe LMCA disease demonstrate comparable short- and mid-term rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke, but increased rates of repeat or target-vessel revascularization after PCI. Though extended follow-up data has suggested lower long-term rates of MI and stroke in patients with severe LMCA disease treated with CABG, results from patients undergoing PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) demonstrate non-inferiority in these outcomes. These findings are generalizable to patients with severe LMCA disease having low to intermediate anatomic complexity. Intravascular ultrasound and double kissing (DK) crush stenting also reduce adverse event rates among patients undergoing left main PCI and improve long-term outcomes. In patients with severe LMCA disease having low to intermediate anatomic complexity, both CABG and PCI with second-generation DES are effective methods of revascularization with comparable long-term rates of death, MI, and stroke. The roles of multi-vessel coronary artery disease and anatomic complexity on long-term outcomes after CABG or PCI for severe LMCA disease remain under investigation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Coronary artery bypass grafting; Intravascular ultrasound; Left main; Left main coronary artery disease; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Randomized control trial; Revascularization
Authors: Enno Boudriot; Holger Thiele; Thomas Walther; Christoph Liebetrau; Peter Boeckstegers; Tilmann Pohl; Bruno Reichart; Harald Mudra; Florian Beier; Brigitte Gansera; Franz-Josef Neumann; Michael Gick; Thomas Zietak; Steffen Desch; Gerhard Schuler; Friedrich-Wilhelm Mohr Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Davide Capodanno; Giuseppe Gargiulo; Sergio Buccheri; Alaide Chieffo; Emanuele Meliga; Azeem Latib; Seung-Jung Park; Yoshinobu Onuma; Piera Capranzano; Marco Valgimigli; Inga Narbute; Raj R Makkar; Igor F Palacios; Young-Hak Kim; Pawel E Buszman; Tarun Chakravarty; Imad Sheiban; Roxana Mehran; Christoph Naber; Ronan Margey; Arvind Agnihotri; Sebastiano Marra; Martin B Leon; Jeffrey W Moses; Jean Fajadet; Thierry Lefèvre; Marie-Claude Morice; Andrejs Erglis; Ottavio Alfieri; Patrick W Serruys; Antonio Colombo; Corrado Tamburino Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Tullio Palmerini; Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai; Diego Della Riva; Andrea Mariani; Manel Sabaté; Pieter C Smits; Christoph Kaiser; Fabrizio D'Ascenzo; Giacomo Frati; Massimo Mancone; Philippe Genereux; Gregg W Stone Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: S Yusuf; D Zucker; P Peduzzi; L D Fisher; T Takaro; J W Kennedy; K Davis; T Killip; E Passamani; R Norris Journal: Lancet Date: 1994-08-27 Impact factor: 79.321