Key result
Drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis showed a trend toward lower angiographic restenosis compared to bare-metal stents (9.6% vs 13.8%, P=0.08).
Why the study?
Does drug-eluting stenting improve clinical and angiographic outcomes compared to bare-metal stenting in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease?
Cohort (n=238)
Does drug-eluting stenting improve clinical and angiographic outcomes compared to bare-metal stenting in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 9.6% vs 13.8%
p-value: p=0.08
Drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis appears safe and shows a trend toward lower restenosis rates compared to bare-metal stents.
May support DES consideration in unprotected left main disease; leaves open randomized confirmation of restenosis benefit.
BACKGROUND: Coronary bypass surgery is recommended for the treatment of left main coronary stenosis. Recently a percutaneous approach has been described as a feasible option. OBJECTIVES: To present the in-hospital and long-term clinical and angiographic outcome of a consecutive group of patients undergoing stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease, and to compare the clinical and angiographic outcomes of drug-eluting stent (DES) versus metal stent (BMS). METHODS: 238 consecutive patients underwent unprotected LMCA stenting. 165 received BMS and 73 received DES. Most patients (88.7%) presented with acute coronary syndrome. Clinical (100%) and angiographic (84%) follow-up was obtained. RESULTS: Patients' presentation: STEMI (7.2%), non-STEMI (13.5%), unstable angina (67.6%), stable angina (11.7%). Procedural success rate was 100%. In-hospital mortality was 2.1%, all in patients presented with unstable hemodynamic conditions. None of the patients needed emergent CABG. In the long-term follow-up (average three years) there were 12 deaths (5%), 3 patients required CABG and 25 patients required TVR. The overall angiographic LM restenosis rate show a trend toward lower rate in the DES group than the BMS group (9.6% versus 13.8%, P = 0.08). There was no difference in one year mortality (4.1% versus 4.2%) and AMI (2.7% versus 2.8%) between DES and BMS. CONCLUSIONS: Stenting for LM stenosis can be performed safely with acceptable in hospital and long-term outcome. Reconsideration of current guidelines should be considered. Drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis appears safe with regard to acute and long-term complications and is more effective in preventing restenosis compared to BMS implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qarawani et al. (2010) conducted a cohort in unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease (n=238). Drug-eluting stent (DES) vs. Bare-metal stent (BMS) was evaluated on angiographic LM restenosis (p=0.08). Drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis showed a trend toward lower angiographic restenosis compared to bare-metal stents (9.6% vs 13.8%, P=0.08).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: