A comparative study of bypass versus percutaneous intervention for left main disease.

Introduction: Left main coronary artery disease is known as the highest risk lesion subset of ischemic heart disease. Several studies have shown a significant benefit following treatment with coronary artery bypass grafting compared with medical treatment. As a result, surgery has been the standard of care for the revascularization of left main disease for a long time. However, with the remarkable improvements in interventional cardiology, percutaneous coronary intervention has become technically feasible and showed favorable clinical outcomes.

Aim: We sought to evaluate trends in treatment strategies of left main coronary artery disease over time in Sahloul University Hospital and to compare patient's characteristics as well as early, mid-term and long-term adverse outcomes of each therapeutic option.

Methods: From 2005 to 2016, 260 patients with unprotected left main disease (defined as stenosis of at least 50%) were included. 109 patients underwent PCI (group 1), 102 patients underwent Surgery (group 2) and 49 patients were medically treated (group 3). Major cardiac and cerebrovascular events were defined as the composite of: mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and need for repeat revascularization. Event rates were estimated with Kaplan-Meier analyses.

Results: Over time, the proportion of patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention rather than coronary artery bypass grafting increased substantially, whereas the proportion of patients who received medical therapy remained steady. Group 1 patients had more cardiogenic shock (6.4% vs 0%, p=0,01) at presentation compared to group 2. More patients treated with surgery had multivessel disease (73% vs 40%; p <0.001), more distal left main bifurcation lesions (52.3% vs 73.5%; p=0.001) and higher SYNTAX scores (23.3±9.96 vs 32.5±8.7; p <0.001). All the other baseline variables were similar. At follow up, there were no differences, at the adjusted analysis, in the rate of myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and the composite endpoint of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (HR: 1, 04; 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.83; p=0.88). Compared to percutaneous coronary intervention group, group 2 has a higher all-cause mortality (p=0.017) driven exclusively by an elevated incidence of operative mortality (13.7% vs. 6.4%; HR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.017 to 0.43; p=0.003). Nevertheless, long-term advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over percutaneous coronary intervention was the less need for repeat revascularization (HR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.26 to 8.12; p=0.014).

Conclusion: Our data show that revascularization therapy have evolved remarkably in the favor of percutaneous coronary intervention over the last decade. Angioplasty and coronary artery bypass graft show comparable safety. However, the need for revascularization is more common after percutaneous treatment.