Why the study?
Does elective unprotected left main coronary artery stenting provide acceptable safety and clinical outcomes in nonsurgical patients?
Does elective unprotected left main coronary artery stenting provide acceptable safety and clinical outcomes in nonsurgical patients?
Elective stenting of the unprotected left main coronary artery in nonsurgical patients is safe and associated with acceptable long-term MACCE rates.
Supports elective unprotected left main stenting in nonsurgical patients; leaves open need for randomized trials versus surgery.
Purpose: Coronary artery bypass graft is the standard treatment for unprotected left main disease; however, some patients are poor surgical candidates due to comorbidities. We assessed the safety and clinical outcome of elective, unprotected left main coronary artery stenting in nonsurgical patients. Methods: Between October 2004 and June 2006, 50 consecutive patients underwent elective, unprotected left main coronary artery stenting at our institution. Patients were followed for a median of 16 and 96 months and clinical outcomes monitored. Results: Median logistic euroSCORE was 28.6 (interquartile range: 14.6-43.4). Median baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 50%. Procedural success rate was 100%. The rates of cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization and cardiovascular death were 2%, 4%, 4% and 2%, respectively, at 30 days, 2%, 6%, 6% and 2% at 16 months, and 2%, 6%, 12% and 4% at 96 months. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rate was 12% at 30 days, 16% at 16 months and 24% at 96 months. Median LVEF at 16 months was 55%, significantly improved from baseline (P<0.001). Conclusion: In nonsurgical patients with left main disease, stenting of the unprotected left main coronary artery is safe, with acceptable rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event up to 96 months poststenting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pham et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: