Percutaneous or surgical revascularization for left main stem disease: NOBLE ideas, but do they EXCEL?

References

• Kassimis G, de Maria GL, Patel N, et al. Assessing the left main stem in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. What is “significant”? Function, imaging or both? Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018;19:51–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel N, De Maria GL, Kassimis G, et al. Outcomes after emergency percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with unprotected left main stem occlusion: the BCIS national audit of percutaneous coronary intervention 6-year experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:969–980.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Burgos JD, Munoz OC, Mukherjee D Emergency intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: case report and review of the literature. Hellenic J. Cardiol. 2011; 52: 545–548.
   Google Scholar
• Karavolias G, Karyofillis P, Georgiadou P, et al. Unprotected left main distal bifurcation lesion. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2012;53:480–484.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papakonstantinou NA, Baikoussis NG. Total arterial revascularization: a superior method of cardiac revascularization. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2016;57:152–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;57:538–545.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buszman PE, Buszman PP, Kiesz RS, et al. Early and long-term results of unprotected left main coronary artery stenting: the LE MANS (Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1500–1501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahn JM, Roh JH, Kim YH, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease: 5-year outcomes of the PRECOMBAT study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:2198–2206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moric E 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;129:2388–2394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sousa-Uva M, Neumann FJ, Ahlsson A, ESC Scientific Document Group, et al. ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;2018(Aug):27.
   Google Scholar
• Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP, et al. The SYNTAX Score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention. 2005;1:219–227.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wykrzykowska JJ, Garg S, Girasis C, et al. Value of the SYNTAX score for risk assessment in the all-comers population of the randomized multicenter LEADERS (Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent coating) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:272–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garg S, Serruys PW, Silber S, et al. The prognostic utility of the SYNTAX score on 1-year outcomes after revascularization with zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents: a substudy of the RESOLUTE All Comers Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:432–441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2013;381:629–638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;391:939–948.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang YJ, Iqbal J, Campos CM, et al. Prognostic value of site SYNTAX score and rationale for combining anatomic and clinical factors in decision making: insights from the SYNTAX trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:423–432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia S, Sandoval Y, Roukoz H, et al. Outcomes after complete versus incomplete revascularization of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of 89,883 patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials and observational studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1421–1431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimarino M, Ricci F, Romanello M, et al. Complete myocardial revascularization confers a larger clinical benefit when performed with state-of-the-art techniques in high-risk patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;87:3–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farooq V, Serruys PW, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. The negative impact of incomplete angiographic revascularization on clinical outcomes and its association with total occlusions: the SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:282–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farooq V, Serruys PW, Bourantas CV, et al. Quantification of incomplete revascularization and its association with five-year mortality in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) trial validation of the residual SYNTAX score. Circulation. 2013;128:141–151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bangalore S, Guo Y, Samadashvili Z, et al. Everolimus eluting stents or bypass surgery for multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1213–1222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahn JM, Park DW, Lee CW, et al. Comparison of stenting versus bypass surgery according to the completeness of revascularization in severe coronary artery disease: patient level pooled analysis of the SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, and BEST Trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:1415–1424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bittl JA, He Y, Jacobs AK, et al. Bayesian methods affirm the use of percutaneous coronary intervention to improve survival in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2013;127:2177–2185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capodanno D, Stone GW, Morice MC, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical data. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1426–1432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavalcante R, Sotomi Y, Lee CW, et al. Outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery in patients with unprotected left main disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:999–1009.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Giacoppo D, Colleran R, Cassese S, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left main coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:1079–1088.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavalcante R, Sotomi Y, Mancone M, et al. Impact of the SYNTAX scores I and II in patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease: a pooled analysis of patient level data from the SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, and BEST trials. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:1969–1977.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW, et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2223–2225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;388:2743–2752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;120:1505–1512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Layland J, Oldroyd KG, Curzen N, et al. FAMOUS-NSTEMI Investigators. Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:100–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong AS, Daniels D, De Bruyne B, et al. Fractional flow reserve assessment of left main stenosis in the presence of downstream coronary stenoses. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:161–165.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Toth G, De Bruyne B, Casselman F, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation. 2013;128:1405–1411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. ; FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA, et al. FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:177–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Nunen LX, Zimmermann FM, Tonino PA, et al. FAME study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:1853–1860.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:991–1001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fearon WF, Nishi T, De Bruyne B, et al. FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease: three-year follow-up of the FAME 2 trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation). Circulation. 2018;137:480–487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escaned J, Collet C, Ryan N, et al. Clinical outcomes of state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with de novo three vessel disease: 1-year results of the SYNTAX II study. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:3124–3134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gershlick AH, Kandzari DE, Banning A, et al. Outcomes after left main percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting according to lesion site: results from the EXCEL trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:1224–1233.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Park D-W, Ahn J-M, Yun S-C, et al. Ten-year outcomes of stents versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 September. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.012.
   Google Scholar
• Thuijs DJ, Mohr FW, Serruys PW, et al. 10-year survival after bypass surgery versus drug-eluting stents: preliminary results of the randomized SYNTAX Extended Survival study (SYNTAXES). Presented at: TCT 2018. September 24, 2018. San Diego, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Kassimis G, Weight N, Kontogiannis N, et al. Technical considerations in transradial unprotected left main stem rotational atherectomy-assisted and IVUS-guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention using the 7.5F Eaucath Sheathless guiding catheter system. Cardiol Res. 2018;9:258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramadan R, Boden WE, Kinlay S. Management of left main coronary artery disease. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Mar 31;7(7). pii: e008151. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.008151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de la Torre Hernandez JM, Baz Alonso JA, Gomez Hospital JA, et al. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park SJ, Kim YH, Park DW, et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on long-term mortality in stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:167–177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen SL, Han YL, Zhang YJ, et al. The anatomic and clinical-based NERS (new risk stratification) score II to predict clinical outcomes after stenting unprotected left main coronary artery disease: results from a multicenter, prospective, registry study. Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:1233–1241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farooq V, van Klaveren D, Steyerberg EW, et al. Anatomical and clinical characteristicsto guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II. Lancet. 2013;381:639–650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen S, Redfors B, Liu Y, et al. Radial versus femoral artery access in patients undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease: analysis from the EXCEL trial. Eurointervention. 2018;14:1104–1111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu B, Redfors B, Yang Y, et al. Impact of operator experience and volume on outcomes after left main coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:2086–2093.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar