This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by White, A. J. Articles by Makkar, R. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by White, A. J. Articles by Makkar, R. R. Related Collections Related Article

Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Percutaneous Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for Treatment of Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis

Anthony J. White, MBBS, PhD^_*, Gautam Kedia, MD^_*, James M. Mirocha, MS^_*, Michael S. Lee, MD, James S. Forrester, MD^_*, Walter C. Morales, BS^_*, Suhail Dohad, MD^_*, Saibal Kar, MD^_*, Lawrence S. Czer, MD^_*, Gregory P. Fontana, MD^_*, Alfredo Trento, MD^_*, Prediman K. Shah, MD^_*, Raj R. Makkar, MD^_*,_*

^_* Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
UCLA Division of Cardiology, Los Angeles, California.

^_* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Raj Makkar, Director, Interventional cardiology & Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90048. (Email: Raj.Makkar{at}cshs.org).

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes for drug-eluting stents (DES) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis.

Background: Expert guidelines recommend coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for the treatment of significant stenosis of the unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) if the patient is eligible for CABG; however, treatment by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is common.

Methods: Details of patients (n = 343, ages 69.9 ± 11.9 years) undergoing coronary revascularization for ULMCA stenosis (April 2003 to January 2007) were recorded. A total of 223 patients were treated with CABG (mean [interquartile range]: follow-up 600 [226 to 977) days) and 120 by PCI (follow-up 362 [192 to 586) days). The hazard ratios (HRs) for death and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were calculated incorporating propensity score adjustment. Survival comparisons were conducted in propensity-matched subjects (n = 134), and in low- and high-risk subjects for CABG.

Results: Patients treated by PCI were more likely to be 75 years of age (49% vs. 33%; p = 0.005), and of greater surgical risk (Parsonnet score 17.2 ± 11.2 vs. 13.0 ± 9.3; p < 0.001) than patients treated by CABG. Overall, the propensity-adjusted HR for death was not statistically different (HR 1.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89 to 4.19, p = 0.10), but MACCE was greater in the PCI group (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.32, p = 0.05). In propensity-matched individuals, neither survival nor MACCE-free survival were different. Survival was equivalent among low-risk candidates, but PCI had a tendency to inferior survival in high-risk candidates (Ellis category IV, log-rank p = 0.05). Interaction testing, however, failed to demonstrate a difference in outcomes of the 2 revascularization techniques as a function of baseline risk assessment.

Conclusions: Overall, the propensity-adjusted risk of mortality for treatment of ULMCA disease does not differ between PCI- and CABG-treated groups. There appears to be sufficient equipoise that a randomized clinical trial to compare the techniques would not be ethically contraindicated.

Abbreviations and Acronyms   CABG = coronary artery bypass graft (surgery)   CI = confidence interval   DES = drug-eluting stent(s)   HR = hazard ratio   IABP = intra-aortic balloon pump   LAD = left anterior descending (coronary artery)   MACCE = major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event   PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention   ULMCA = unprotected left main coronary artery

Related Article

The Challenge of Left Main Stenosis

Bruce W. Lytle
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv. 2008 1: 246-247. [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Naik, A. J. White, T. Chakravarty, J. Forrester, G. Fontana, S. Kar, P. K. Shah, R. E. Weiss, and R. Makkar A Meta-Analysis of 3,773 Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Surgery for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., August 1, 2009; 2(8): 739 - 747. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. R. Dixon, C. L. Grines, and W. W. O'Neill The year in interventional cardiology. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 2, 2009; 53(22): 2080 - 2097. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. S. Teirstein Percutaneous Revascularization Is the Preferred Strategy for Patients With Significant Left Main Coronary Stenosis Circulation, February 24, 2009; 119(7): 1021 - 1033. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. W. Lytle The Challenge of Left Main Stenosis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., June 1, 2008; 1(3): 246 - 247. [Full Text] [PDF]