Address for Reprints: Professor Didier Carrié, M.D., Ph.D., Cardiology B Department, Rangueil Hospital, 1 avenue du Professeur Jean Poulhès, TSA 50032, 31059 Toulouse Cedex 9, France. Fax: 33. 5.61.32.38.30; e-mail: [email protected]

Read the full text

About

PDF

Tools

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Purpose: The present observational study compares in-hospital and 12-month clinical outcomes in elderly patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease treated either with coronary artery bypass grafting or drug-eluting stent.

Methods: From January 2004 to December 2007, 211 patients (pts) with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis, aged 75 or older, underwent coronary revascularization either with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) (106 pts) or drug-eluting stent (DES) (105 pts). The decision to treat with CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was dependent on the patient's and the physician's choice. The occurrence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE: death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke) and revascularizations was recorded after 1 year of follow-up. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed using a propensity score method to take potential baseline differences between groups into account.

Results: In-hospital MACCE rates were 5.7% and 3.8% in the CABG and PCI groups, respectively (P = 0.748). After 1 year of follow-up, these rates were, respectively, 13.9% and 14.9% (P = 0.841), and rates for target vessel revascularization at 12 months were 1.0% and 13.9% (P < 0.001). The PCI group was significantly associated with older age, dyslipidemia, history of cancer, high Euroscore, elevated creatininemia, single-vessel disease, fewer chronic occlusions of the left anterior descending artery, and more LMCA stenosis ≥70%. The multivariate logistic regression analysis was adjusted for age, diabetes, left ventricular ejection fraction, Euroscore, and plasma creatininemia and stratified on the score of propensity to be treated with PCI. In the subgroup below median propensity score, the adjusted odds ratio for 1-year MACCE was OR = 0.91 (95% confidence interval: 0.14 to 5.98; P = 0.924) whereas OR was 0.16 (0.04–0.69; P = 0.013) in the subgroup above median propensity score.

Conclusions: In patients with a high probability of being treated with PCI (older age, high Euroscore, high creatininemia, single-vessel disease, …), the 1-year risk of MACCE was significantly lower in PCI- than in CABG-treated subjects. No significant difference was found in other cases.

References

1 Smith SC, Jr., Dove JT, Jacobs AK, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines of percutaneous coronary interventions (revision of the 1993 PTCA guidelines)–Executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (committee to revise the 1993 guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty). J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37(8): 2215–2239.
10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01344-4
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 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): 765–777.
10.1016/0002-9149(81)90156-9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Prospective randomised study of coronary artery bypass surgery in stable angina pectoris. Second interim report by the European Coronary Surgery Study Group. Lancet 1980; 2(8193): 491–495.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Avery GJ, 2nd, Ley SJ, Hill JD, et al. Cardiac surgery in the octogenarian: Evaluation of risk, cost, and outcome. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 71(2): 591–596.
10.1016/S0003-4975(00)02163-9
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Shirani J, Yousefi J, Roberts WC. Major cardiac findings at necropsy in 366 American octogenarians. Am J Cardiol 1995; 75(2): 151–156.
10.1016/S0002-9149(00)80065-X
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Hirsch H, Lazar J, Marzo KP, et al. Percutaneous revascularization for unstable angina in the elderly. Coron Artery Dis 2000; 11(4): 315–322.
10.1097/00019501-200006000-00004
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Rodes-Cabau J, Deblois J, Bertrand OF, et al. Nonrandomized comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease in octogenarians. Circulation 2008; 118(23): 2374–2381.
10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.727099
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, Rickards AF, et al. Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing coronary angioplasty with bypass surgery. Lancet 1995; 346(8984): 1184–1189.
10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92897-9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, et al. One-year clinical results with the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS stent: The TAXUS-IV trial. Circulation 2004; 109(16): 1942–1947.
10.1161/01.CIR.0000127110.49192.72
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Grube E, Silber S, Hauptmann KE, et al. TAXUS I: Six- and twelve-month results from a randomized, double-blind trial on a slow-release paclitaxel-eluting stent for de novo coronary lesions. Circulation 2003; 107(1): 38–42.
10.1161/01.CIR.0000047700.58683.A1
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med 2002; 346(23): 1773–1780.
10.1056/NEJMoa012843
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Biondi-Zoccai G, Lotrionte M, Moretti C, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting stents (Xience V): Systematic review and direct-indirect comparison meta-analyses with paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus) and sirolimus-eluting stents (Cypher). Minerva Cardioangiol 2008; 56(1): 55–65.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
13 Park SJ, Kim YH, Lee BK, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: Comparison with bare metal stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45(3): 351–356.
10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.039
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Valgimigli M, Van Mieghem CA, Ong AT, et al. Short- and long-term clinical outcome after drug-eluting stent implantation for the percutaneous treatment of left main coronary artery disease: Insights from the rapamycin-eluting and Taxus stent evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital registries (RESEARCH and T-SEARCH). Circulation 2005; 111(11): 1383–1389.
10.1161/01.CIR.0000158486.20865.8B
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Price MJ, Cristea E, Sawhney N, et al. Serial angiographic follow-up of sirolimus-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47(4): 871–877.
10.1016/j.jacc.2005.12.015
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Chieffo A, Morici N, Maisano F, et al. Percutaneous treatment with drug-eluting stent implantation versus bypass surgery for unprotected left main stenosis: A single-center experience. Circulation 2006; 113(21): 2542–2547.
10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.595694
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Kim YH, Park SW, Hong MK, et al. Comparison of simple and complex stenting techniques in the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation stenosis. Am J Cardiol 2006; 97(11): 1597–1601.
10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.12.051
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 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): 864–870.
10.1016/j.jacc.2005.09.072
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R, et al. ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to update the 1999 guidelines for coronary artery bypass graft surgery). J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44(5): e213–e310.
10.1016/j.jacc.2004.07.021
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Silber S, Albertsson P, Aviles FF, et al. Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2005; 26(8): 804–847.
10.1093/eurheartj/ehi138
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Smith SC, Jr., Feldman TE, Hirshfeld JW, Jr., et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI writing committee to update 2001 guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention). Circulation 2006; 113(7): e166–e286.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 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): 961–972.
10.1056/NEJMoa0804626
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

All articles

One-Year Follow-Up of Nonrandomized Comparison between Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery and Drug-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Elderly Patients (Aged ≥75 Years)

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

One-Year Follow-Up of Nonrandomized Comparison between Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery and Drug-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Elderly Patients (Aged ≥75 Years)

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information