Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Cardiology Reviews

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-403X
ISSN (Online): 1875-6557

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Review Article

The Contemporary Management of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Author(s): Jonathan A. Mailey* and Mark S. Spence

Volume 18, Issue 1, 2022

Published on: 16 June, 2021

Article ID: e170621194128 Pages: 6

DOI: 10.2174/1573403X17666210617094735

Price: $65

Open Access Journals Promotions 2
Abstract

The ‘gold standard’ in the management of left main coronary artery disease has historically been coronary artery bypass surgery. Recent innovations in drug-eluting stent technology coupled with the increasing utility of physiology and imaging guidance for procedures have led to an evolving role of percutaneous coronary intervention in left main disease of low and intermediate anatomical complexity. This revascularization modality carries the clear advantage of being less invasive and significantly reduced recovery times. This practice is currently supported by international guidelines, however, it remains a controversial topic in the field of interventional cardiology, and the long-term outcomes of a percutaneous strategy have been questioned.

This review describes the current evidence base for the assessment and choice of intervention in left main coronary artery disease. The percutaneous revascularization techniques and use of imaging to optimize procedures and improve clinical outcomes have been discussed.

Keywords: Left main coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, left main coronary interventions, intravascular imaging, revascularization of stable coronary artery.

Graphical Abstract

[1]
Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, et al. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: A pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet 2018; 391(10124): 939-48.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30423-9] [PMID: 29478841]
[2]
Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, et al. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2020; 382(15): 1395-407.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1915922] [PMID: 32227755]
[3]
The veterans administration coronary artery bypass surgery cooperative study group. Eleven-year survival in the Veterans Administration randomized trial of coronary bypass surgery for stable angina. N Engl J Med 1984; 311(21): 1333-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198411223112102] [PMID: 6333636]
[4]
Varnauskas E. Twelve-year follow-up of survival in the randomized European Coronary Surgery Study. N Engl J Med 1988; 319(6): 332-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198808113190603] [PMID: 3260659]
[5]
Passamani E, Davis KB, Gillespie MJ, Killip T. A randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Survival of patients with a low ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 1985; 312(26): 1665-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198506273122603] [PMID: 3873614]
[6]
Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahisson A, et al. ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Europ heart j 2018; 40(2): 87-165.
[7]
Fihn S, Blankenship J, Alexander K, et al. 2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS focussed update of the guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischaemic heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64(18): 1929-49.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.07.017] [PMID: 25077860]
[8]
Fisher LD, Judkins MP, Lesperance J, et al. Reproducibility of coronary arteriographic reading in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS). Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1982; 8(6): 565-75.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.1810080605] [PMID: 7151153]
[9]
Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009; 360(3): 213-24.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0807611] [PMID: 19144937]
[10]
Bech GJWB, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: A randomized trial. Circulation 2001; 103(24): 2928-34.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.103.24.2928] [PMID: 11413082]
[11]
Hamilos M, Muller O, Cuisset T, et al. Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided treatment in patients with angiographically equivocal left main coronary artery stenosis. Circulation 2009; 120(15): 1505-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.850073] [PMID: 19786633]
[12]
Cerrato E, Echavarria-Pinto M, D’Ascenzo F, et al. Safety of intermediate left main stenosis revascularization deferral based on fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-regression including 908 deferred left main stenosis from 12 studies. Int J Cardiol 2018; 271: 42-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.04.032] [PMID: 30223378]
[13]
Fearon WF, Yong AS, Lenders G, et al. The impact of downstream coronary stenosis on fractional flow reserve assessment of intermediate left main coronary artery disease: Human validation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8(3): 398-403.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2014.09.027] [PMID: 25790763]
[14]
de la Torre Hernandez JM, Hernández Hernandez F, Alfonso F, et al. Prospective application of pre-defined intravascular ultrasound criteria for assessment of intermediate left main coronary artery lesions results from the multicenter LITRO study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58(4): 351-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.02.064] [PMID: 21757111]
[15]
Park SJ, Ahn JM, Kang SJ, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-derived minimal lumen area criteria for functionally significant left main coronary artery stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7(8): 868-74.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2014.02.015] [PMID: 25147031]
[16]
Jasti V, Ivan E, Yalamanchili V, Wongpraparut N, Leesar MA. Correlations between fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound in patients with an ambiguous left main coronary artery stenosis. Circulation 2004; 110(18): 2831-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000146338.62813.E7] [PMID: 15492302]
[17]
Mäkikallio T, Holm NR, Lindsay M, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): A prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016; 388(10061): 2743-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32052-9] [PMID: 27810312]
[18]
Stone GW, Kappetein AP, Sabik JF, et al. Five-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for left main coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2019; 381(19): 1820-30.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1909406] [PMID: 31562798]
[19]
Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009; 360(10): 961-72.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0804626] [PMID: 19228612]
[20]
Morice MC, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP, et al. Outcomes in patients with de novo left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention using paclitaxel-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass graft treatment in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial. Circulation 2010; 121(24): 2645-53.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.899211] [PMID: 20530001]
[21]
Morice MC, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP, et al. Five-year outcomes in patients with left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery trial. Circulation 2014; 129(23): 2388-94.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006689] [PMID: 24700706]
[22]
Buszman PE, Buszman PP, Banasiewicz-Szkróbka I, et al. 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(4): 318-27.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2015.10.044] [PMID: 26892080]
[23]
Boudriot E, Thiele H, Walther T, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main stem stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57(5): 538-45.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.09.038] [PMID: 21272743]
[24]
Pereg D, Fefer P, Samuel M, et al. Native coronary artery patency after coronary artery bypass surgery. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7(7): 761-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2014.01.164] [PMID: 25060019]
[25]
Maeng M, Holm NR, Erglis A, et al. Long-term results after simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: Nordic bifurcation study 5-year follow-up results. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62(1): 30-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.04.015] [PMID: 23644088]
[26]
Hildick-Smith D, de Belder AJ, Cooter N, et al. Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug-eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions: The british bifurcation coronary study: Old, new, and evolving strategies. Circulation 2010; 121(10): 1235-43.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.888297] [PMID: 20194880]
[27]
Chen SL, Santoso T, Zhang JJ, et al. Clinical outcome of double kissing crush versus provisional stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: The 5-year follow-up results from a randomized and multicenter DKCRUSH-II study (randomized study on double kissing crush technique versus provisional stenting technique for coronary artery bifurcation lesions). Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10(2): e004497.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004497] [PMID: 28122805]
[28]
Chen S-L, Zhang J-J, Han Y, et al. Double kissing crush versus provisional stenting for left main distal bifurcation lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70(21): 2605-17.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.09.1066] [PMID: 29096915]
[29]
Chen SL, Xu B, Han YL, et al. Clinical outcome after DK crush versus culotte stenting of distal left main bifurcation lesions: The 3-year follow-up results of the DKCRUSH-III study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8(10): 1335-42.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2015.05.017] [PMID: 26315736]
[30]
Chiabrando JG, Lombardi M, Vescovo GM, et al. Stenting techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions: Evidence from a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2021; 97(3): e306-18.
[PMID: 32662603]
[31]
Soo-Jin K, Jung-Min A, Haegeun S, et al. Comprehensive intravascular ultrasound assessment of stent area and its impact on restenosis and adverse cardiac events in 403 patients with unprotected left main disease. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4(6): 562-9.
[PMID: 32662603]
[32]
Ladwiniec A, Walsh SJ, Ramsing Holm N, et al. Intravascular ultrasound to guide left main stem intervention: A NOBLE trial substudy. EuroIntervention 2011; 16(3): 201-9.
[PMID: 32662603]
[33]
Maehara A, Mintz G, Serruys P, et al. Impact of final minimal stent area by ivus on 3-year outcome after PCI of left main coronary artery disease: The excel trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69(11)(Suppl.): 963.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(17)34352-8]
[34]
De la Torre Hernández JM, García Camarero T, Baz Alonso JA, et al. The application of predefined optimization criteria for intravascular ultrasound guidance of left main stenting improves outcomes. EuroIntervention 2020; 16(3): 210-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-19-01057] [PMID: 32011286]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
49
1
Wayfinder Image
Open Access Journals Promotions
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy