Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of left main percutaneous coronary interventions in patients disqualified from coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
Does left main percutaneous coronary intervention (LM PCI) provide safe and effective outcomes in patients disqualified from CABG compared to those offered PCI as an alternative?
Does left main percutaneous coronary intervention (LM PCI) provide safe and effective outcomes in patients disqualified from CABG compared to those offered PCI as an alternative?
LM PCI is a safe and effective procedure for patients disqualified from CABG, with high procedural success and acceptable long-term outcomes despite their higher baseline risk.
LM PCI may offer a viable option for CABG-ineligible patients; leaves open the need for randomized data to inform Heart Team decisions.
The study aims to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of left main percutaneous coronary interventions (LM PCI) in patients disqualified from coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). We included 459 patients (mean age: 68.4 ± 9.4 years, 24.4% females), with at least 1-year follow-up; 396 patients in whom PCI was offered as an alternative to CABG (Group 1); and 63 patients who were disqualified from CABG by the Heart Team (Group 2). The SYNTAX score (29.1 ± 9.5 vs. 23.2 ± 9.7; p < 0.001) and Euroscore II value (2.72 ± 2.01 vs. 2.15 ± 2.16; p = 0.007) were significantly higher and ejection fraction was significantly lower (46% vs. 51.4%; p < 0.001) in Group 2. Patients in Group 2 more often required complex stenting techniques (33.3% vs. 16.2%; p = 0.001). The procedure success rates were very high and did not differ between groups (100% vs. 99.2%; p = 0.882). We observed no difference in periprocedural complication rates (12.7% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.198), but the long-term all-cause mortality rate was higher in Group 2 (26% vs. 21%; p = 0.031). LM PCI in patients disqualified from CABG is an effective and safe procedure with a low in-hospital complication rate. Long-term results are satisfactory.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Skorupski et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: