Why the study?
Contemporary practice in LM PCI involves conflicting data on stenting strategies for distal disease, limited evidence on image-guided outcomes, and unclear roles for mechanical circulatory support.
This review highlights contemporary trials and current guidelines for left main percutaneous coronary intervention, including stenting strategies, imaging, and mechanical circulatory support.
LM PCI viable per current ESC guidance in low-SYNTAX cases; review leaves open durability versus CABG in broader populations.
Left main (LM) coronary artery disease accounts for approximately 4-6% of all percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). There has been mounting evidence indicating the non-inferiority of LM PCI as a revascularization option, particularly for those with a low SYNTAX score. The EXCEL and NOBEL trials have shaped current guidelines. The European Society of Cardiology assigned a class 2a (level of evidence B) for isolated LM disease involving the shaft and ostium and a class IIb (level of evidence B) for isolated LM disease involving the bifurcation or additional two- or three-vessel disease and a SYNTAX score <32. However, data on the use of a single stent or an upfront two-stent strategy for distal LM disease are conflicting, wherein the EBC Main trial reported similar outcomes with a stepwise provisional approach and the DKCRUSH-V trial reported better outcomes with an upfront two-stent strategy using the 'double-kissing' crush technique. Although several studies have noted better immediate results with image-guided PCI, there are few data on outcomes in LM disease specifically. In fact, the uptake of imaging in the aforementioned landmark trials was only 40%. More importantly, the role of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been less well studied in LM PCI. Indiscriminate use of MCS for LM PCI has been noted in clinical practice. Trials evaluating the benefit of MCS in high-risk PCI demonstrated no benefit. This review highlights contemporary trials as they apply to current practice in LM PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Almoghairi et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: