Skip to content
2000
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Current Cardiology Reviews
  4. Volume 20, Issue 6
  5. Article
Volume 20, Issue 6
  • ISSN: 1573-403X
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

There is debate on the best treatment for significant stenoses of the left main (LM) coronary artery. The available evidence is based on four randomized trials, which were either performed specifically to assess patients with LM disease (EXCEL, NOBLE, PRECOMBAT) or had a significant fraction of patients with this disease pattern (SYNTAX). A meta-analysis revealed no difference in periprocedural and 5-year mortality but demonstrated a significant reduction of spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) with CABG. Furthermore, the recently published SWEDEHEART registry data have shown survival advantage and fewer MACCE with CABG for LM disease after adjustment. In general, patients with more severe coronary artery disease (CAD) appear to have a survival advantage with CABG both over PCI and medical therapy (independent of the presence or absence of LM stenosis), which is always associated with a reduction of spontaneous MI in the CABG arm. Since the nomenclature of LM disease does not automatically reflect the complexity of CAD, we review the nature of LM disease in this article. We mechanistically assess the treatment effects of PCI and CABG for patients with LM disease, which is rarely isolated, often distal, and mostly associated with varying degrees of single and multi-vessel disease. We conclude that in patients with isolated LM shaft lesions and associated diseases of low complexity, the risk of spontaneous MI is lower, and PCI may achieve similar long-term outcomes compared to CABG. Thus, heart teams are essential for selecting the best treatment option and should focus on assessing infarction risk in chronic CAD.

© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/ccr/10.2174/011573403X321064240715061250
2024-11-01
2024-11-22

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/ccr/10.2174/011573403X321064240715061250
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. TaggartD.P. Response by David Taggart, MD, PhD to the EXCEL Statement.2019Available from: https://www.tctmd.com/slide/response-david-taggart-md-phd-excel-statement
  2. YusufS. ZuckerD. PassamaniE. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: Overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the coronary artery bypass graft surgery trialists collaboration.Lancet1994344892256357010.1016/S0140‑6736(94)91963‑1 7914958
     [Google Scholar]
  3. NeumannF.J. Sousa-UvaM. AhlssonA. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization.Eur. Heart J.20194028716510.1093/eurheartj/ehy394 30165437
     [Google Scholar]
  4. LawtonJ.S. Tamis-HollandJ.E. BangaloreS. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: A report of the american college of cardiology/american heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines.Circulation20221453e18e11410.1161/CIR.0000000000001038 34882435
     [Google Scholar]
  5. RuelM. FalkV. FarkouhM.E. Myocardial revascularization trials.Circulation2018138252943295110.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035970 30566019
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ben-YehudaO. ChenS. RedforsB. Impact of large periprocedural myocardial infarction on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting for left main disease: An analysis from the EXCEL trial.Eur. Heart J.201940241930194110.1093/eurheartj/ehz113 30919909
     [Google Scholar]
  7. MatthewsR. Storks Deliver Babies (p = 0.008).Teach. Stat.2000222363810.1111/1467‑9639.00013
     [Google Scholar]
  8. MohammadM.A. StoneG.W. KoulS. On the natural history of coronary artery disease: A longitudinal nationwide serial angiography study.J. Am. Heart Assoc.20221121e02639610.1161/JAHA.122.026396 36300820
     [Google Scholar]
  9. d’AllonnesF.R. CorbineauH. Le BretonH. LeclercqC. LeguerrierA. DaubertC. Isolated left main coronary artery stenosis: Long term follow up in 106 patients after surgery.Br. Heart J.200287654454810.1136/heart.87.6.544 12010936
     [Google Scholar]
  10. SrinivasS.K. SunilB. BhatP. ManjunathC.N. Incidence, predictors, clinical profile, management and outcome of patients with isolated left main coronary artery ostial disease.Indian Heart J.201870221421910.1016/j.ihj.2017.06.008 29716697
     [Google Scholar]
  11. StoneG.W. KappeteinA.P. SabikJ.F. Five-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for Left main coronary disease.N. Engl. J. Med.2019381191820183010.1056/NEJMoa1909406 31562798
     [Google Scholar]
  12. HolmN.R. MäkikallioT. LindsayM.M. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: Updated 5-year outcomes from the randomised, non-inferiority NOBLE trial.Lancet20203951021919119910.1016/S0140‑6736(19)32972‑1 31879028
     [Google Scholar]
  13. ParkS.J. KimY.H. ParkD.W. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease.N. Engl. J. Med.2011364181718172710.1056/NEJMoa1100452 21463149
     [Google Scholar]
  14. ThuijsD.J.F.M. KappeteinA.P. SerruysP.W. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial.Lancet2019394102061325133410.1016/S0140‑6736(19)31997‑X 31488373
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Surgeons withdraw support for heart disease advice2019Available from:https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07xf5by
  16. SabatineM.S. BergmarkB.A. MurphyS.A. Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease: An individual patient data meta-analysis.Lancet2021398103182247225710.1016/S0140‑6736(21)02334‑5 34793745
     [Google Scholar]
  17. PerssonJ. YanJ. AngeråsO. PCI or CABG for left main coronary artery disease: the SWEDEHEART registry.Eur. Heart J.202344302833284210.1093/eurheartj/ehad369 37288564
     [Google Scholar]
  18. TamD.Y. FangJ. RochaR.V. Real-world examination of revascularization strategies for left main coronary disease in Ontario, Canada.JACC Cardiovasc. Interv.202316327728810.1016/j.jcin.2022.10.016 36609048
     [Google Scholar]
  19. De FilippoO. Di FrancoA. BorettoP. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery surgery for left main disease according to lesion site: A meta-analysis.J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.20231661120132.e1110.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.08.040 34538641
     [Google Scholar]
  20. DavidsonL.J. ClevelandJ.C. WeltF.G. A practical approach to left main coronary artery disease: JACC state-of-the-art review.J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.202280222119213410.1016/j.jacc.2022.09.034 36423996
     [Google Scholar]
  21. DoenstT. HaverichA. SerruysP. PCI and CABG for treating stable coronary artery disease: JACC review topic of the week.J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.201973896497610.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.053 30819365
     [Google Scholar]
  22. KirovH. CaldonazoT. RiedelL.L. Comparing outcomes between coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians with left main or multivessel disease.Sci. Rep.20231312232310.1038/s41598‑023‑49069‑2 38102297
     [Google Scholar]
  23. KirovH. FischerJ. CaldonazoT. Coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with chronic total occlusion.Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.202410.1055/s‑0044‑1787014 38759955
     [Google Scholar]
  24. SongP.S. SongY.B. YangJ.H. Periprocedural myocardial infarction is not associated with an increased risk of long-term cardiac mortality after coronary bifurcation stenting.Int. J. Cardiol.201316741251125610.1016/j.ijcard.2012.03.146 22494861
     [Google Scholar]
  25. AbdallahM.S. WangK. MagnusonE.A. Quality of life after surgery or DES in patients with 3-vessel or left main disease.J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.201769162039205010.1016/j.jacc.2017.02.031 28427580
     [Google Scholar]
  26. SpertusJ.A. JonesP.G. MaronD.J. Health-Status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease.N. Engl. J. Med.2020382151408141910.1056/NEJMoa1916370 32227753
     [Google Scholar]
  27. CarrK.W. EnglerR.L. RossJ.Jr Do coronary artery bypass operations prolong life?West. J. Med.19821364295308 7046257
     [Google Scholar]
  28. GaudinoM. AudisioK. HuebW.A. Coronary artery bypass grafting versus medical therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease: An individual patient data pooled meta-analysis of randomized trials.J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.2022 35821087
     [Google Scholar]
  29. VelazquezE.J. LeeK.L. JonesR.H. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.N. Engl. J. Med.2016374161511152010.1056/NEJMoa1602001 27040723
     [Google Scholar]
  30. PereraD. ClaytonT. O’KaneP.D. Percutaneous revascularization for ischemic left ventricular dysfunction.N. Engl. J. Med.2022387151351136010.1056/NEJMoa2206606 36027563
     [Google Scholar]
  31. BonowR.O. MaurerG. LeeK.L. Myocardial viability and survival in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction.N. Engl. J. Med.2011364171617162510.1056/NEJMoa1100358 21463153
     [Google Scholar]
  32. PanzaJ.A. HollyT.A. AschF.M. Inducible myocardial ischemia and outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction.J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.201361181860187010.1016/j.jacc.2013.02.014 23500234
     [Google Scholar]
  33. JonesR.H. VelazquezE.J. MichlerR.E. Coronary bypass surgery with or without surgical ventricular reconstruction.N. Engl. J. Med.2009360171705171710.1056/NEJMoa0900559 19329820
     [Google Scholar]
  34. HeadS.J. MilojevicM. DaemenJ. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: A pooled analysis of individual patient data.Lancet20183911012493994810.1016/S0140‑6736(18)30423‑9 29478841
     [Google Scholar]
  35. CaldonazoT. KirovH. RiedelL.L. GaudinoM. DoenstT. Comparing CABG and PCI across the globe based on current regional registry evidence.Sci. Rep.20221212216410.1038/s41598‑022‑25853‑4 36550130
     [Google Scholar]
  36. MortensenM.B. DzayeO. SteffensenF.H. Impact of plaque burden versus stenosis on ischemic events in patients with coronary atherosclerosis.J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.202076242803281310.1016/j.jacc.2020.10.021 33303068
     [Google Scholar]
  37. FalkE. ShahP.K. FusterV. Coronary plaque disruption.Circulation199592365767110.1161/01.CIR.92.3.657 7634481
     [Google Scholar]
  38. KirovH. CaldonazoT. MukharyamovM. Cardiac Surgery 2023 reviewed.Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.2024 38740368
     [Google Scholar]
  39. GaudinoM. Di FrancoA. SpadaccioC. Difference in spontaneous myocardial infarction and mortality in percutaneous versus surgical revascularization trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.2021 34045061
     [Google Scholar]
  40. WilliamsM.C. MossA.J. DweckM. Coronary artery plaque characteristics associated with adverse outcomes in the SCOT-HEART study.J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.201973329130110.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.066 30678759
     [Google Scholar]
  41. SonaglioniA. RigamontiE. NicolosiG.L. LombardoM. Appropriate use criteria implementation with modified Haller index for predicting stress echocardiographic results and outcome in a population of patients with suspected coronary artery disease.Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging202137102917293010.1007/s10554‑021‑02274‑4 33961159
     [Google Scholar]
  42. MalinowskiM. DejaM.A. GołbaK.S. RolederT. BiernatJ. WośS. Perivascular tissue of internal thoracic artery releases potent nitric oxide and prostacyclin-independent anticontractile factor.Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.200833222523110.1016/j.ejcts.2007.11.007 18083040
     [Google Scholar]
  43. DoenstT. ThieleH. HaasenritterJ. WahlersT. MassbergS. HaverichA. The treatment of coronary artery disease.Dtsch. Arztebl. Int.202211942716723 35912444
     [Google Scholar]
  44. IbanezB. JamesS. AgewallS. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation.Eur. Heart J.201839211917710.1093/eurheartj/ehx393 28886621
     [Google Scholar]
  45. AndersenH.R. NielsenT.T. RasmussenK. A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial in-farction.N. Engl. J. Med.2003349873374210.1056/NEJMoa025142 12930925
     [Google Scholar]
  46. KeeleyE.C. BouraJ.A. GrinesC.L. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials.Lancet20033619351132010.1016/S0140‑6736(03)12113‑7 12517460
     [Google Scholar]
  47. ZijlstraF. HoorntjeJ.C.A. de BoerM.J. Long-term benefit of primary angioplasty as compared with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction.N. Engl. J. Med.1999341191413141910.1056/NEJM199911043411901 10547403
     [Google Scholar]
  48. KirovH. CaldonazoT. RahoumaM. A systematic review and meta-analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention compared to coronary artery bypass grafting in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome.Sci. Rep.2022121513810.1038/s41598‑022‑09158‑0 35332253
     [Google Scholar]
  49. DoenstT. BonowR.O. BhattD.L. FalkV. GaudinoM. Improving terminology to describe coronary artery procedures.J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.202178218018810.1016/j.jacc.2021.05.010 34238439
     [Google Scholar]
  50. KarrowniW. MakkiN. DhaliwalA.S. Single versus double stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J. Invasive Cardiol.2014266229233 24907076
     [Google Scholar]
  51. VelazquezE.J. PokorneyS.D. SzwedH. Abstract 16636: Left ventricular function and remodeling early after coronary artery bypass graft-ing compared with medical therapy: Results from the surgical treatment for ischemic heart failure (STICH)trial.Circulation2014130A16636A6
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/ccr/10.2174/011573403X321064240715061250
Loading
Invasive Treatment of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: From Anatomical Features to Mechanistic Differences
Current Cardiology Reviews 20, E150724231978 (2024); https://doi.org/10.2174/011573403X321064240715061250
/content/journals/ccr/10.2174/011573403X321064240715061250
/content/journals/ccr/10.2174/011573403X321064240715061250
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Review Article
Keyword(s): anatomical features; Coronary artery bypass grafting; coronary artery disease; LM shaft; LM stenosis; percutaneous coronary intervention

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test