Update on percutaneous intervention for left main coronary artery stenosis

References

• Takaro T, Hultgren HN, Lipton MJ, Detre KM. The va cooperative randomized study of surgery for coronary arterial occlusive disease ii. Subgroup with significant left main lesions. Circulation 1976;54(6 Suppl):III107-17
   Google Scholar
• Chaitman BR, Fisher LD, Bourassa MG, et al. Effect of coronary bypass surgery on survival patterns in subsets of patients with left main coronary artery disease. Report of the collaborative study in coronary artery surgery (cass). Am J Cardiol 1981;48(4):765-77
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caracciolo EA, Davis KB, Sopko G, et al. Comparison of surgical and medical group survival in patients with left main equivalent coronary artery disease. Long-term CASS experience. Circulation 1995;91(9):2335-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med 2003;349(14):1315-23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, et al. A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004;350(3):221-31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seung KB, Park DW, Kim YH, et al. Stents versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2008;358(17):1781-92
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park SJ, Kim YH, Park DW, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2011;364(18):1718-27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buszman PE, Kiesz SR, Bochenek A, et al. Acute and late outcomes of unprotected left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51(5):538-45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park DW, Seung KB, Kim YH, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: 5-year results from the main-compare (revascularization for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: Comparison of percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus surgical revascularization) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56(2):117-24
   Google Scholar
• Lee MS, Kapoor N, Jamal F, et al. Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery with percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47(4):864-70
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chieffo A, Stankovic G, Bonizzoni E, et al. Early and mid-term results of drug-eluting stent implantation in unprotected left main. Circulation 2005;111(6):791-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmerini T, Marzocchi A, Marrozzini C, et al. Comparison between coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (the bologna registry). Am J Cardiol 2006;98(1):54-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanmartin M, Baz JA, Claro R, et al. Comparison of drug-eluting stents versus surgery for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 2007;100(6):970-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makikallio TH, Niemela M, Kervinen K, et al. Coronary angioplasty in drug eluting stent era for the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis compared to coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Med 2008;40(6):437-43
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng CI, Lee FY, Chang JP, et al. Long-term outcomes of intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: Coronary stenting vs coronary artery bypass grafting. Circ J 2009;73(4):705-12
   Google Scholar
• Wu X, Chen Y, Liu H, et al. Comparison of long-term (4-year) outcomes of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery narrowing treated with drug-eluting stents versus coronary-artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol 2010;105(12):1728-34
   Google Scholar
• Park DW, Kim YH, Yun SC, et al. Long-term outcomes after stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: 10-year results of bare-metal stents and 5-year results of drug-eluting stents from the asan-main (asan medical center-left main revascularization) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56(17):1366-75
   Google Scholar
• Caggegi A, Capodanno D, Capranzano P, et al. Comparison of one-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndromes (from the customize registry). Am J Cardiol 2011;108(3):355-9
   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(5):538-45
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park JS, Choi YW, Shin JS, et al. Validation of three-dimensional echocardiography for quantification of aortic root geometry: Comparison with multi-detector computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Ultrasound 2011;19(3):128-33
   Google Scholar
• Takagi H, Kawai N, Umemoto T. Stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009;137(1):e54-7
   Google Scholar
• Lee MS, Yang T, Dhoot J, Liao H. Meta-analysis of clinical studies comparing coronary artery bypass grafting with percutaneous coronary intervention and drug-eluting stents in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery narrowings. Am J Cardiol 2010;105(8):1070-5
   Google Scholar
• Naik H, White AJ, Chakravarty T, et al. A meta-analysis of 3,773 patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention or surgery for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2(8):739-47
   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(14):1426-32
   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: Five-year outcomes of the PRECOMBAT study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65(20):2198-206
   Google Scholar
• Chieffo A, Meliga E, Latib A, et al. Drug-eluting stent for left main coronary artery disease. The delta registry: A multicenter registry evaluating percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main treatment. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012;5(7):718-27
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines and the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58(24):e44-122
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Authors/Task Force M. Windecker S, Kolh P, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The task force on myocardial revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (eapci). Eur Heart J 2014;35(37):2541-619
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin GA, Dudley RA, Lucas FL, et al. Frequency of stress testing to document ischemia prior to elective percutaneous coronary intervention. Jama 2008;300(15):1765-73
   Google Scholar
• Toth G, Hamilos M, Pyxaras S, et al. Evolving concepts of angiogram: Fractional flow reserve discordances in 4000 coronary stenoses. Eur Heart J 2014;35(40):2831-8
   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(15):1505-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riley RF, Don CW, Powell W, et al. Trends in coronary revascularization in the united states from. 2001 to 2009. Recent declines in percutaneous coronary intervention volumes. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2011(2):193-7
   Google Scholar
• Park SJ, Ahn JM, Park GM, et al. Trends in the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with the routine incorporation of fractional flow reserve in real practice. Eur Heart J 2013;34(43):3353-61
   Google Scholar
• Bech GJ, Droste H, Pijls NH, et al. Value of fractional flow reserve in making decisions about bypass surgery for equivocal left main coronary artery disease. Heart 2001;86(5):547-52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courtis J, Rodes-Cabau J, Larose E, et al. Usefulness of coronary fractional flow reserve measurements in guiding clinical decisions in intermediate or equivocal left main coronary stenoses. Am J Cardiol 2009;103(7):943-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindstaedt M, Yazar A, Germing A, et al. Clinical outcome in patients with intermediate or equivocal left main coronary artery disease after deferral of surgical revascularization on the basis of fractional flow reserve measurements. Am Heart J 2006;152(1):156-e151-9
   Google Scholar
• Jasti V, Ivan E, Yalamanchili V, et al. Correlations between fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound in patients with an ambiguous left main coronary artery stenosis. Circulation 2004;110(18):2831-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallidi J, Atreya AR, Cook J, et al. Long-term outcomes following fractional flow reserve-guided treatment of angiographically ambiguous left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2015;86(1):12-18
   Google Scholar
• De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Heyndrickx GR, et al. Pressure-derived fractional flow reserve to assess serial epicardial stenoses: Theoretical basis and animal validation. Circulation 2000;101(15):1840-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Bech GJ, et al. Coronary pressure measurement to assess the hemodynamic significance of serial stenoses within one coronary artery: Validation in humans. Circulation 2000;102(19):2371-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oviedo C, Maehara A, Mintz GS, et al. Intravascular ultrasound classification of plaque distribution in left main coronary artery bifurcations: Where is the plaque really located? Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2010;3(2):105-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park SJ, Ahn JM, Kang SJ. Unprotected left main percutaneous coronary intervention: Integrated use of fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound. J Am Heart Assoc 2012;1(6):e004556
   Google Scholar
• Chen SL, Xu B, Chen JB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative angiographic and intravascular ultrasound parameters predicting the functional significance of single de novo lesions. Int J Cardiol 2013;168(2):1364-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang SJ, Lee JY, Ahn JM, et al. Validation of intravascular ultrasound-derived parameters with fractional flow reserve for assessment of coronary stenosis severity. Circulation. Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4(1):65-71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee CH, Tai BC, Soon CY, et al. New set of intravascular ultrasound-derived anatomic criteria for defining functionally significant stenoses in small coronary arteries (results from intravascular ultrasound diagnostic evaluation of atherosclerosis in Singapore [ideas] study). Am J Cardiol 2010;105(10):1378-84
   Google Scholar
• Waksman R, Legutko J, Singh J, et al. First: Fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound relationship study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61(9):917-23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nascimento BR, De Sousa MR, Koo BK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intravascular ultrasound-derived minimal lumen area compared with fractional flow reserve–meta-analysis: Pooled accuracy of IVUS luminal area versus FFR. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014;84(3):377-85
   Google Scholar
• Palmerini T, Marzocchi A, Tamburino C, et al. Impact of bifurcation technique on 2-year clinical outcomes in 773 patients with distal unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2008;1(3):185-92
   Google Scholar
• Kim WJ, Kim YH, Park DW, et al. Comparison of single- versus two-stent techniques in treatment of unprotected left main coronary bifurcation disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2011;77(6):775-82
   Google Scholar
• Song YB, Hahn JY, Yang JH, et al. Differential prognostic impact of treatment strategy among patients with left main versus non-left main bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Results from the COBIS (coronary bifurcation stenting) registry ii. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7(3):255-63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toyofuku M, Kimura T, Morimoto T, et al. Three-year outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: Insights from the j-cypher registry. Circulation 2009;120(19):1866-74
   Google Scholar
• Lassen JF, Holm NR, Stankovic G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation disease: Consensus from the first 10 years of the European bifurcation club meetings. EuroIntervention 2014;10(5):545-60
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang SJ, Ahn JM, Song H, 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang SJ, Mintz GS, Oh JH, et al. Intravascular ultrasound assessment of distal left main bifurcation disease: The importance of the polygon of confluence of the left main, left anterior descending, and left circumflex arteries. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013;82(5):737-45
   Google Scholar
• Hahn JY, Chun WJ, Kim JH, et al. Predictors and outcomes of side branch occlusion after main vessel stenting in coronary bifurcation lesions: Results from the COBIS ii registry (coronary bifurcation stenting). J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62(18):1654-9
   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(3):167-77
   PubMed 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(3):244-54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang SJ, Ahn JM, Kim WJ, et al. Functional and morphological assessment of side branch after left main coronary artery bifurcation stenting with cross-over technique. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014;83(4):545-52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nam CW, Hur SH, Koo BK, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography in left circumflex ostial intervention after left main crossover stenting. Korean Circ J 2011;41(6):304-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naganuma T, Chieffo A, Meliga E, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention for ostial/mid-shaft lesions versus distal bifurcation lesions in unprotected left main coronary artery: The delta registry (drug-eluting stent for left main coronary artery disease): A multicenter registry evaluating percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main treatment. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013(12):1242-9
   Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Rizvi A, Sudhir K, et al. Randomized comparison of everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents. 2-year follow-up from the spirit (clinical evaluation of the Xience v everolimus eluting coronary stent system) iv trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58(1):19-25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baber U, Mehran R, Sharma SK, et al. Impact of the everolimus-eluting stent on stent thrombosis: A meta-analysis of 13 randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58(15):1569-77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valenti R, Migliorini A, Parodi G, et al. Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents or first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents for unprotected left main disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60(14):1217-22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De La Torre Hernandez JM, Alfonso F, Sanchez Recalde A, et al. Comparison of paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus) and everolimus-eluting stents (xience) in left main coronary artery disease with 3 years follow-up (from the Estrofa-lm registry). Am J Cardiol 2013;111(5):676-83
   Google Scholar
• Park KW, Lim WH, Ahn HS, et al. Everolimus- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (results from the excellent registry). Int J Cardiol 2013;168(3):2738-44
   Google Scholar
• Kim YH, Park DW, Ahn JM, et al. Everolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. The precombat-2 (premier of randomized comparison of bypass surgery versus angioplasty using sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with left main coronary artery disease) study. JACC. Cardiovasc Interv 2012;5(7):708-17
   Google Scholar
• Capodanno D, Capranzano P, La Manna A, Tamburino C. Meta-analysis of everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with left main coronary artery undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Int J Cardiol 2013;168(2):1718-19
   Google Scholar
• Patel N, Banning AP. Bioabsorbable scaffolds for the treatment of obstructive coronary artery disease: The next revolution in coronary intervention? Heart 2013;99(17):1236-43
   Google Scholar
• Iqbal J, Onuma Y, Ormiston J, et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds: Rationale, current status, challenges, and future. Eur Heart J 2014;35(12):765-76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brugaletta S, Heo JH, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. Endothelial-dependent vasomotion in a coronary segment treated by absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold system is related to plaque composition at the time of bioresorption of the polymer: Indirect finding of vascular reparative therapy? Eur Heart J 2012;33(11):1325-33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez D, Brugaletta S, Martin-Yuste V, et al. First experience of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in left main stenosis. Int J Cardiol 2013;168(2):1566-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormiston JA, De Vroey F, Serruys PW, Webster MW. Bioresorbable polymeric vascular scaffolds: A cautionary tale. Circulation. Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4(5):535-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyazaki T, Panoulas VF, Sato K, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for left main lesions; a novel strategy to overcome limitations. Int J Cardiol 2014;175(1):e11-13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyazaki T, Panoulas VF, Sato K, et al. In-scaffold restenosis in a previous left main bifurcation lesion treated with bioresorbable scaffold v-stenting. JACC. Cardiovasc Interv 2015(8(1 Pt A):e7-e10
   Google Scholar
• Sato K, Latib A, Panoulas VF, et al. A case of true left main bifurcation treated with bioresorbable everolimus-eluting stent v-stenting. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7(8):e103-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Everaert B, Capranzano P, Tamburino C, et al. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in left main coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention 2015;11(Suppl V):V135-8
   Google Scholar
• Navarese EP, Kowalewski M, Kandzari D, et al. First-generation versus second-generation drug-eluting stents in current clinical practice: Updated evidence from a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comprising 31 379 patients. Open heart 2014;1(1):e000064
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2014;371(13):1208-17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pijls NH, Van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the defer study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49(21):2105-11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA, et al. 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(3):177-84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar