eISSN: 1897-4252
ISSN: 1731-5530
Kardiochirurgia i Torakochirurgia Polska/Polish Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Supplements Editorial board Reviewers Abstracting and indexing Contact Instructions for authors Publication charge Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
2/2024
vol. 21
 
Share:
Share:
Review paper

Left main coronary artery disease: percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting? A critical review of current knowledge and contemporary debates

Ioannis Panagiotopoulos
1
,
Francesk Mulita
2
,
Georgios-Ioannis Verras
2
,
Eleni Bekou
3
,
Admir Mulita
3
,
Manfred Dahm
4
,
Konstantinos Grapatsas
5
,
Assaf Sawafta
6
,
Anastasia Katinioti
,
Elias Liolis
7
,
Christos Pitros
8
,
Levan Tchabashvili
9
,
Konstantinos Tasios
2
,
Andreas Antzoulas
2
,
Spyros Papadoulas
9
,
Efstratios Koletsis
1
,
Vasileios Leivaditis
4

  1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, General University Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece
  2. Department of Surgery, General University Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece
  3. Medical Physics Department, Democritus University of Thrace, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Alexandroupolis, Greece
  4. Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Westpfalz Klinikum, Kaiserslautern, Germany
  5. Department of Thoracic Surgery and Thoracic Endoscopy, Ruhrlandklinik, West German Lung Center, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen Essen, Germany
  6. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
  7. Cardiology Department, Elpis General Hospital, Athens, Greece
  8. Department of Oncology, General University Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece
  9. Department of Vascular Surgery, General University Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece
Kardiochirurgia i Torakochirurgia Polska 2024; 21 (2): 108-112
Online publish date: 2024/07/07
Article file
- Left main coronary.pdf  [0.12 MB]
Get citation
 
PlumX metrics:
 

Introduction

The left main coronary artery arises from the left sinus of Valsalva, below the sinotubular junction, and, after a short course (average length: 10 mm), it splits into anterior descending and circumflex or trifurcates (1/3 of cases) due to the presence of the intermediate branch. It is divided into three parts: the ostium, middle, and distal part (bifurcation). The ostium lacks an outer coat and has many smooth muscle cells and many elastic fibers, the most in the entire coronary network. This property should be taken into consideration when planning an intervention via angioplasty (PCI), as it provides greater flexibility and support, making it technically advantageous for PCI at this location. The rest of the sections have standard architecture (inner/middle/outer coat), identical to the epicardial coronary arteries [1].

Historically, it was quickly understood that patients with unprotected left main disease (ULMD) face a very high mortality risk (> 50% in 5 years) and morbidity, higher than expected for other locations of coronary artery disease (CAD), because the vessel is responsible for 84% of the blood flow to the left ventricle, and irrigates about 70% of its mass. Given the predictive severity of ULMD in contemporary clinical practice, interventional treatment is strongly recommended for stenoses (> 50%) [24]. Left main disease (LMD) is not rare in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel CAD [5]. Therefore, the term LMD seems to include a large and heterogeneous population: with/without disease in the rest of the coronary network, with various locations (ostium, etc.), with/without comorbidities (DM, etc.), with different age distributions, etc. The hemodynamic data of the area play a primary role in the development of atherosclerotic plaque in the left main coronary artery, with the regions of low shear stress being more vulnerable (e.g., on the lateral walls of the bifurcation) and the areas of high shear stress being considered relatively resistant [6].

Also, the length of the vessel seems to play a role in the position where the atheromatous plaque will develop; in short stems, the lesion tends to develop near the ostium, while in larger stems, the lesion tends to be located in the bifurcation area and be more calcified [7]. The interventional methods (coronary artery bypass grafting – CABG, PCI) differ in the mechanisms by which they improve blood flow to the myocardium: PCI directly opens the stenosis, dilates and stabilizes the lumen but does not affect in any way the progression of the atherosclerotic plaque in other parts of the diseased vessel. CABG restores blood flow to the under-perfused myocardium and, by protecting the peripheral vessel from the progression of CAD (due to secretion of vasodilatory factors from the graft), seems to reduce the likelihood of subsequent myocardial infarction (MI) [8].

The developments in imaging methods are crucial in the modern approach to the disease: intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) provides information about the hemodynamic impact and the precise morphological characteristics of the lesion, allowing the selection of the optimal strategy, facilitates stent placement and reveals possible periprocedural complications. Similarly, fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement evaluates the functional consequences of borderline angiographic lesions, setting or lifting in this way, often playing a pivotal role in patient stratification in favor of interventional treatment [68].

The superiority of surgery over conservative treatment was documented in the 1970s and 1980s. Hence, CABG was considered the intervention of choice in LMD [911]. However, the developments in interventional cardiology, in combination with the not negligible long-term rate of failure of venous grafts, fueled the research interest for newer treatment options and highlighted PCI as an alternative proposal from the early 2000s.

Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses for the treatment of left main coronary artery disease

A comprehensive review of the literature was performed via a search in the Medline database. The most relevant articles related to the treatment of patients with left main CAD disease, comparing PCI with open-heart surgery, were selected for discussion:

  1. PRECOMBAT: (2004–2009, Premier of Randomized Comparison of Bypass Surgery versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients with Left-Main CAD): A non-inferiority trial, where PCI (first-generation DES) was proven non-inferior to CABG in the endpoints (mortality/MI/stroke/reintervention), at 1 year/5 years/10 years. However, the expanded non-inferiority margins made the study not helpful clinically or at the level of guidelines [12].

  2. SYNTAX: (2005–2007, first-generation paclitaxel-eluting-stents) included patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). CABG was enormously superior in the population’s endpoints at the follow-up (10 years) [13]. In a posthoc analysis of patients with LMD, the major adverse events were comparable between the two groups: similar mortality at 1–5 years, increased stroke in the CABG group, and increased need for reintervention in the PCI group. Further analysis showed identical effects of the methods in the intermediate/low but clear superiority of surgery in the high SYNTAX scores [14].

  3. EXCEL: (2010–2014, Evaluation of Xience Everolimus-Eluting Stent vs. CABG Surgery for Effectiveness of Left-Main Revascularization) included patients with intermediate/low SYNTAX scores. At 3 years, the results were comparable in terms of major endpoints. PCI was associated with fewer bleeding events, infections, and MI in the periprocedural period. These results are confirmed at 5 years. Nevertheless: a) the results of CABG endure and develop over time (the favorable effects of PCI are maintained until 36 months, then CABG evolves better), b) reintervention is more frequent after PCI [1517].

  4. NOBLE: (2008–2015, Nordic-Baltic-British Left-Main Revascularization, 2nd generation biolimus-eluting or 1st generation sirolimus-eluting stents): At 5 years, the major complications were significantly higher for the PCI group, and therefore the hypothesis of non-inferiority was not confirmed. The mortality may have been similar, but CABG was associated with significantly lower stroke, MI, and reintervention rates. Also, stent thrombosis occurred more frequently in NOBLE than in EXCEL, which is attributed to using different stents per study. Finally, the superiority of CABG was confirmed in the whole population, regardless of the SYNTAX score [18].

  5. LE MANS: (2008, 2009, 2016, Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting Trial): The initial outcomes showed that patients treated with PCI for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease exhibited more favorable early outcomes than those who underwent CABG. By the 1-year mark, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) had significantly improved in the PCI group alone. Beyond 2 years, the rates of survival without major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were comparable between both groups, although there was a trend towards better long-term survival rates following PCI, which was however statistically not significant [19]. Over a 10-year period, patients who underwent stentingfor revascularization of the ULMCA, showing low tomedium complexity in coexisting coronary artery disease, demonstrated a trend toward improved ejection fractioncompared to those who underwent surgery. This trend was however still not supported statistically by significant difference. While mortality and MACCE rates did not differ significantly between the stenting and surgery groups, numerical trends favored stenting. There were also no significant differences in the occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, and the need for repeated revascularization. The probability of surviving up to 14 years was similar between PCI and CABG, but a trend suggested higher MACCE-free survival in the PCI group. In summary, stenting presented a numerically favorable, though not statistically significant, long-term safety and efficacy outcome up to 10 years, offering a viable alternative to CABG for patients with ULMCA stenosis and low to medium disease complexity [20].

Recently (2017–2021), seven meta-analyses concluded that PCI with DES and CABG have similar efficacy that, depending on the case, extends up to 10 years [21]. The EXCEL and NOBLE studies seem to be the most selective, with a lower risk of bias and thus higher generalizability. However, despite their prospective nature and careful design, they yielded conflicting results. Indeed, while EXCEL proved the non-inferiority of PCI, with NOBLE, this was not possible, reflecting the design heterogeneity between the studies, the different efficacy of alternative types of stents, the other surgical practices in the material (off-pump CABG, on-pump, arterial revascularization), and different effectiveness of each method over time [22].

Also, the selected statistical methods are essential in highlighting and interpreting the results. For example, the Bayesian analysis of EXCEL does not confirm the hypothesis of non-inferiority of PCI. According to this analysis, practices should be individualized. PCI in LM should only concern a strictly selected population with minimal life expectancy (2–3 years) and patients with very high surgical risk [17]. In any case, the results of randomized studies need to be supplemented with longer follow-ups to enhance their reliability. Regardless of any differences, some findings are consistently repeated in randomized studies: i) The 5-year survival is similar, regardless of the method of treatment; ii) reintervention and late MI are higher after PCI; iii) stroke and periprocedural MI are more common in CABG; and iv) the benefit that emerges from the less invasive nature of PCI seems to fade over time.

On the other hand, the entry of patients into the protocols of randomized studies is often a rigorous and restrictive process because a set of criteria must be met simultaneously, both for inclusion and exclusion from the study. This raises concerns about to what extent the results of the studies can be generalized and should guide the decisions of everyday clinical practice. Patients in “real life” usually, in addition to the fundamental cardiological problem, have a set of comorbidities and anatomical peculiarities, which must be taken seriously into consideration in the design and treatment, and such patients are traditionally excluded from extensive studies.

From this point of view, the conclusions from the study of large databases should be taken seriously precisely because they emerge after analyzing the entire population, without exceptions, and unapproved, often categorizations. Thus, the very recent report from the analysis of the Swedish database for angiographically confirmed LMD, excluding patients with non-ST myocardial infarction (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry – 10 254 patients, PCI:5391, PP:4863), reached the following conclusions: a) CABG is associated with significantly lower mortality than PCI. b) The favorable effects of CABG are more significant and more evident the longer the patient’s life expectancy is. c) PCI should be preferred in elderly patients with LMD (aged > 80 years) [23].

Risk factors related to higher risk for LMD

There is a wealth of evidence concerning the increased risk for progressive atherosclerotic disease, and it merits an individualized approach concerning treatment options. Moreover, diabetic patients are likely to have extensive and diffuse CAD with a high atherosclerotic burden, and diabetes mellitus (DM) is a risk factor for CABG interventions. The recommendation for CABG in diabetic patients with three-vessel CAD is known. However, no specific guidelines exist for patients with LMD and DM because no randomized studies have been done on this question. The data come from subgroup analyses of extensive studies and do not differ, in general, from those of the general population, indicating that the presence of DM has a limited effect on the respective treatment method. Thus, DM patients with LMD and uncomplicated CAD can be treated with PCI [21, 24]. Long-term LMD, when untreated, is often complicated with heart failure (HF). A recent publication highlighted the results of CABG in patients with HF as clearly better than those of PCI, mainly due to the possibility of achieving complete revascularization. Therefore, the functional status of the myocardium is a factor that must be considered when planning the intervention [25]. The optimal treatment for people aged > 70 years is still being determined, given that these patients are usually more vulnerable, with more comorbidities and complex CAD. It seems that elderly (> 70 years) patients with three-vessel CAD ± LMD have a 10-year mortality, a 5-year incidence of significant complications, and a 5-year quality of life that are comparable between PCI and CABG, so PCI probably constitutes a good, effective, safe, and less invasive alternative, the desired outcome, for this group of patients [26].

Finally, the exact topographic location of LMD is a factor of decisive importance in the choice of method. Isolated ostial or trunk lesions are treated equivalently with CABG and PCI [27]. However, bifurcation lesions are more technically demanding, so the results of PCI are inferior to CABG in this position. Before making decisions, a careful study and evaluation of the lesions should be done with all available imaging methods (Angiography/IVUS/FFR) [28].

Lastly, it is essential to consider that CABG techniques differ in efficacy and long-term outcomes. In more detail, achieving total arterial revascularization (TAR) for CABG has been controversial. Although a wealth of evidence has solidified it as the treatment gold standard, it is underused in contemporary clinical practice, with usage rates ranging from 56% to 2%. Thus, there is an increasing need for well-designed studies that compare endovascular treatment methods and TAR. Despite what we know, many of the questions still need to be answered: What is the long-term effectiveness of the most advanced stents, primarily when the intervention is performed under the guidance of modern imaging tools? (For now, we know from the FAME 3 study that FFR-guided PCI is not “non-inferior” to CABG for the same disease.) [29]. What is the long-term effectiveness of methods in patients with high clinical (DM, HF) and anatomical risk (bifurcation lesions)? When can we accept incomplete revascularization? What is the optimal PCI strategy for peripheral bifurcation lesions? What is the optimal antiplatelet/antithrombotic drug therapy for complex PCI?

Review of guidelines for treatment of LMD

In the last decade, the guidelines strongly recommend (Class I) CABG as the method of choice for treating LMD. In agreement with the European Guidelines of 2014, the guidelines of 2019 maintained the strong recommendation for CABG in LMD (Class I), with the highest degree of evidence (A) and regardless of the anatomical complexity [24, 30]. After the publication of the results of EXCEL and NOBLE, however, PCI is considered an appropriate alternative to CABG for patients with low/medium SYNTAX scores, combined with upgrading the degree of evidence from B to A for where it is proposed. Thus, PCI is recommended in SYNTAX scores ≤ 22, receives indication IIa in SYNTAX scores 23–32, and is not recommended in lesions of high complexity (SYNTAX score ≥ 33, III B). In comparison with the European Guidelines of 2014, the American guidelines of the same year take into consideration clinical data in their recommendations [31]: IIa for PCI, when: high surgical risk (STS-score > 5%) and low-risk PCI with high probability for good long-term outcomes (e.g., SYNTAX score ≤ 22 and ostial LMD) are documented; IIb for PCI, when: there is low/intermediate risk, medium/high probability for good long-term outcomes, and increased surgical risk (COPD, REDO, stroke, STS score > 2); III: patients with inappropriate anatomy for PCI but good candidates for CABG. In the most recent American guidelines: CABG has a recommendation 1 B-R for LMD and is preferred. PCI has an indication IIa B-NR in selected patients, provided that it can ensure revascularization similar to CABG [32]. At this point, we should emphasize the role of the Heart Team in making decisions and shaping the treatment strategy because the respective guidelines, no matter how accurate they are, only provide a general outline in which one must move. In many cases, they legitimize the gray areas that undoubtedly exist. Each patient is unique, requiring individualized diagnostic and therapeutic requirements. From this perspective, in specialized cases, the Heart Team is the one that will answer the following questions: Which method ensures complete revascularization? What is the risk of each intervention? What long-term benefits does each method offer? What is the experience of the department in treating the disease? All of the above must be communicated to the patient, who, being informed, must participate in the final decision.

Conclusions

LMD should be treated surgically. CABG is the treatment of choice, reflected over time, up to the most recent guidelines. The developments of interventional cardiology at the level of materials, techniques, imaging, and drug therapy and the new profile of cardiac patients (increased life expectancy, comorbidities) have highlighted PCI as a reliable, less invasive alternative to CABG. Both methods have evolved rapidly in recent years, as evidenced by the results of EXCEL and NOBLE: mortality < 1% at 30 days for a disease that previously had very high mortality/morbidity. What we know: CABG offers complete revascularization, even in anatomically special conditions, has a low rate of reoperation, and protects from sudden MI in the long term. On the other hand, PCI is less invasive and offers immediate recovery, short hospitalization, and low perioperative morbidity. Both methods have comparable short/medium-term outcomes in low- to medium-risk patients. Thus, and given that patients need to be individualized, as general rules, the following could be considered: CABG will be preferred in patients with HF, concomitant heart surgery disease that will be treated simultaneously, inability to receive dual antiplatelet therapy for long-term stent support, DM with multivessel disease and, of course, complex CAD, as reflected in the SYNTAX score. On the other hand, in stable clinical disease, PCI will be preferred in patients with significant comorbidities, high surgical risk, limited life expectancy, disease of low to moderate anatomical complexity, and, depending on the case, in lesions purely ostial or on the trunk of the LM.

Acknowledgments

Ioannis Panagiotopoulos, Francesk Mulita and Georgios-Ioannis Verras – equal contribution.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflict of interest.

References

1 

Bergelson BA, Tommaso CL. Left-main coronary-artery-disease: assessment, diagnosis, and therapy. Am. Heart J 1995; 129: 350-359.

2 

Conley MJ, Ely RL, Kisslo J, Lee KL, McNeer JF, Rosati RA. The prognostic spectrum of left-main stenosis. Circulation 1978; 57: 947-952.

3 

Braunwald E. Treatment of left-main coronary-artery-disease. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 2284-2285.

4 

Lee PH, Ahn JM, Chang M, Baek S, Yoon SH, Kang SJ, Lee SW, Kim YH, Lee CW, Park SW, Park DW, Park SJ. Left-main coronary-artery-disease: secular trends in patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes. JACC 2016; 68: 1233-1246.

5 

D’Ascenzo F, Presutti DG, Picardi E, Moretti C, Omedè P, Sciuto F, Novara M, Yan AT, Goodman S, Mahajan N, Kosuge M, Palazzuoli A, Jong GP, Isma’eel H, Budoff MJ, Rubinshtein R, Gewirtz H, Reed MJ, Theroux P, Biondi-Zoccai G, Modena MG, Sheiban I, Gaita F. Prevalence and non-invasive predictors of left-main or three-vessel coronary disease: evidence from a collaborative international meta-analysis including 22740 patients. Heart 2012; 98: 914-919.

6 

Slager CJ, Wentzel JJ, Gijsen FJH, Schuurbiers JCH, van der Wal AC, van der Steen AFW, Serruys PW. The role of shear stress in the generation of rupture-prone vulnerable plaques. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 2005; 2: 401-407.

7 

Maehara A, Mintz GS, Castagna MT, Pichard AD, Satler LF, Waksman R, Laird Jr JR, Suddath WO, Kent KM, Weissman NJ. Intravascular ultrasound assessment of the stenoses-location and morphology in the left-main coronary-artery in relation to anatomic left-main length. Am J Cardiol 2001; 88: 1-4.

8 

de la Torre Hernandez JM, Baz Alonso JA, Gómez Hospital JA, Manterola FA, Camarero TG, de Carlos FG, Ferrer GR, Recalde AS, Martínez-Luengas IL, Lara JG, Hernandez FH, Pérez-Vizcayno MJ, Fillat AC, de Prado AP, Gonzalez-Trevilla AA, Jimenez Navarro MF, Ferre JM, Fernandez Diaz JA, Bermudez EP, Gil JZ; IVUS-TRONCO-ICP Spanish study. Clinical impact of intravascular-ultrasound guidance in drug-eluting-stent implantation for unprotected left-main coronary-disease: pooled analysis at the patient-level of 4 registries. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7: 244-254.

9 

Cooley DA, Dawson JT, Hallman GL, Sandiford FM, Wukasch DC, Garcia E, Hall RJ. Aortocoronary saphenous-vein bypass. results in 1,492 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 1973; 16: 380-390.

10 

Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, Fisher LD, Takaro T, Kennedy JW, Davis K, Killip T, Passamani E, Norris R. Effect of coronary artery bypass surgery on survival: an overview of 10-year results from randomized trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet 1994; 344: 563-570.

11 

CASS Principal Investigators and their Associates. Coronary-artery-surgery study (CASS): a randomized trial of a surgery. Survival data. Circulation 1983; 68: 939-950.

12 

Park DW, Ahn JM, Park H, Yun SC, Kang DY, Lee PH, Kim YH, Lim DS, Rha SW, Park GM, Gwon HC, Kim HS, Chae IH, Jang Y, Jeong MH, Tahk SJ, Seung KB, Park SJ; PRECOMBAT Investigators. Ten-year outcomes after drug-eluting-stents versus CABG for left-main coronary-disease. Extended follow-up of the PRECOMBAT Trial. Circulation 2020; 141: 1437-1446.

13 

Thuijs DJFM, Kappetein AP, Serruys PW, Mohr FW, Morice MC, Mack MJ, Holmes Jr DR, Curzen N, Davierwala P, Noack T, Milojevic M, Dawkins KD, da Costa BR, Jüni P, Head SJ; SYNTAX Extended Survival Investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus CABG in patients with three-vessel or left-main CAD: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre-randomized-controlled SYNTAX-trial Lancet 2019; 394: 1325-1334.

14 

Morice MC, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Ståhle E, Colombo A, Mack MJ, Holmes DR, Choi JW, Ruzyllo W, Religa G, Huang J, Roy K, Dawkins KD, Mohr F. Five-year outcomes in patients with left-main disease treated with either PCI or CABG in the synergy between PCI with Taxus and cardiac-surgery trial. Circulation 2014; 129: 2388-2394.

15 

Collet C, Capodanno D, Onuma Y, Banning A, Stone GW, Taggart DP, Sabik J, Serruys Patrick W. Left main coronary artery disease: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Nat Rev Cardiol 2018; 15: 321-331.

16 

Stone GW, Kappetein AP, Sabik JF, Pocock SJ, Morice MC, Puskas J, Kandzari DE, Karmpaliotis D, Brown WM 3rd, Lembo NJ, Banning A, Merkely B, Horkay F, Boonstra PW, van Boven AJ, Ungi I, Bogáts G, Mansour S, Noiseux N, Sabaté M, Pomar J, Hickey M, Gershlick A, Buszman PE, Bochenek A, Schampaert E, Pagé P, Modolo R, Gregson J, Simonton CA, Mehran R, Kosmidou I, Généreux P, Crowley A, Dressler O, Serruys PW; EXCEL Trial Investigators. Five-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for left main coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 1820-1830.

17 

Brophy JM. Bayesian interpretation of the EXCEL trial and other randomized clinical trials of left main coronary artery revascularization. JAMA Int Med 2020; 180: 986-992.

18 

Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW, Simonton CA, Généreux P, Puskas J, Kandzari DE, Morice MC, Lembo N, Brown 3rd WM, Taggart DP, Banning A, Merkely B, Horkay F, Boonstra PW, van Boven AJ, Ungi I, Bogáts G, Mansour S, Noiseux N, Sabaté M, Pomar J, Hickey M, Gershlick A, Buszman P, Bochenek A, Schampaert E, Page P, Dressler O, Kosmidou I, Mehran R, Pocock SJ, Kappetein A; EXCEL Trial Investigators. Everolimus-eluting-stents or bypass surgery for left-main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 2223-2235.

19 

Buszman PE, Kiesz SR, Bochenek A, Peszek-Przybyla E, Szkrobka I, Debinski M, Bialkowska B, Dudek D, Gruszka A, Zurakowski A, Milewski K, Wilczynski M, Rzeszutko L, Buszman P, Szymszal J, Martin JL, Tendera M. Acute and late outcomes of unprotected left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51: 538-45.

20 

Buszman PE, Buszman PP, Banasiewicz-Szkróbka I, Milewski KP, Żurakowski A, Orlik B, Konkolewska M, Trela B, Janas A, Martin JL, Kiesz RS, Bochenek A. Left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization: 10-year outcomes of the (Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting) LE MANS Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9: 318-327.

21 

Park S, Park SJ, Park DW. Percutaneous coronary-intervention for left-main coronary-artery-disease present status and future perspectives. JACC Asia 2022; 2: 119-138.

22 

Bakaeen FG, Svennson LG. PCI or CABG for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2020; 383: 292.

23 

Available at: https://www.tctmd.com/tct2022, Accessed at: September 19, 2022

24 

De Filippo O, Di Franco A, Boretto P, Bruno F, Cusenza V, Desalvo P, Demetres M, Saglietto A, Franchin L, Piroli F, Marengo G, Elia E, Falk V, Conrotto F, Doenst T, Rinaldi M, De Ferrari GM, D’Ascenzo F, Gaudino M. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery surgery for left-main disease according to lesion site: a meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; 166: 120-132.

25 

Park S, Ahn JM, Kim TO, Park H, Kang DY, Lee PH, Jeong YJ, Hyun J, Lee J, Kim JH, Yang Yujin, Choe K, Park SJ, Park DW; IRIS-MAIN Registry Investigators. Revascularization in patients with left-main coronary artery disease and left-ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020; 76: 1395-1406.

26 

Ono M, Serruys PW, Hara H, Kawashima H, Gao C, Wang R, Takahashi K, O’Leary N, Wykrzykowska JJ , Sharif F, Piek JJ, Garg S, Mack MJ, Holmes DR, Morice MC, Head SJ, Kappetein AP, Thuijs DJFM, Noack T, Davierwala PM, Mohr FW, Cohen DJ, Onuma Y; SYNTAX Extended Survival Investigators. 10-year follow-up after revascularization in elderly patients with complex coronary-artery disease. JACC 2021; 77: 2761-2773.

27 

Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning AP, Benedetto U, Byrne RA, Collet JP, Falk V, Head SJ, Jüni P, Kastrati A, Koller A, Kristensen SD, Niebauer J, Richter DJ, Seferovic PM, Sibbing D, Stefanini GG, Windecker S, Yadav R, Zembala MO; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019; 40: 87-165.

28 

Hyun J, Kim JH, Jeong Y, Choe KJ, Lee J, Yang Y, Kim TO, Park H, Cho SC, Ko E, Kang DY, Lee PH, Ahn JM, Park SJ, Park DW; MAIN-COMPARE Registry. Long-term outcomes after PCI or CABG for left-main coronary-artery disease according to lesion location. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2020; 13: 2825-2836.

29 

Fearon W, Zimmermann FM, De Bruyne B, Piroth Z, van Straten AHM, Szekely L, Davidavičius G, Kalinauskas G, Mansour S, Kharbanda R, Östlund-Papadogeorgos N, Aminian A, Oldroyd KG, Al-Attar N, Jagic N, Dambrink JHE, Kala P, Angerås O, MacCarthy P, Wendler O, Casselman F, Witt N, Mavromatis K, Miner SES, Sarma J, Engstrøm T, Christiansen EH, Tonino PAL, Reardon MJ, Lu D, Ding VY, Kobayashi Y, Hlatky MA, Mahaffey KW, Desai M, Woo YJ, Yeung AC, Pijls NHJ; FAME 3 Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI as compared with coronary bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 2022; 386: 128-137.

30 

Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, Collet JP, Cremer J, Falk V, Filippatos G, Hamm C, Head SJ, Jüni P, Kappetein AP, Kastrati A, Knuuti J, Landmesser U, Laufer G, Neumann FJ, Richter DJ, Schauerte P, Uva MS, Stefanini GG, Taggart DP, Torracca L, Valgimigli M, Wijns W, Witkowski A. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the ESC and the EACTS Developed with the special contribution of the EAPCI. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 2541-2619.

31 

Fihn SD, Blankenship JC, Alexander KP, Bittl JA, Byrne JG, Fletcher BJ, Fonarow GC, Lange RA, Levine GN, Maddox TM, Naidu SS, Ohman EM, Smith PK. 2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS focused update of the guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64: 1929-1949.

32 

Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, Bates ER, Beckie TM, Bischoff JM, Bittl JA, Cohen MG, DiMaio JM, Don CW, Fremes SE, Gaudino MF, Goldberger ZD, Grant MC, Jaswal JB, Kurlansky PA, Mehran R, Metkus Jr TS, Nnacheta LC, Rao SV, Sellke FW, Sharma G, Yong CM, Zwischenberger BA. 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 2022; 79: e21-e129.

Copyright: © 2024 Polish Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons (Polskie Towarzystwo KardioTorakochirurgów) and the editors of the Polish Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (Kardiochirurgia i Torakochirurgia Polska). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
 
Quick links
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.