Objectives There are limited data on long-term outcomes (ie, beyond 4 years) for patients with unprotected left main bifurcation disease who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era. This study therefore compared the treatment effects of PCI and CABG in unprotected left main bifurcation disease.
Methods 865 patients with unprotected left main bifurcation disease treated with either PCI using DES (n=556) or CABG (n=309) were evaluated between May 2003 and December 2009. PCI-treated patients were further categorised into simple stenting (n=360) or complex stenting (n=196).
Results Median follow-up was 4.2 years (IQR 2.9–5.2 years). After adjusting covariates with multivariate Cox hazard regression model and inverse probability of treatment weighting, the long-term cumulative rates of death (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.45) or composite of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or stroke (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.48) were not significantly different for patients undergoing PCI or CABG except for target-vessel revascularisation (TVR) (HR 4.42, 95% CI 2.39 to 8.18). The complex stenting group had similar long-term clinical outcomes compared with the simple stenting group except for TVR (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.10). In further analysis with propensity score matching, overall findings were consistent.
Conclusions In patients with unprotected left main bifurcation disease, PCI using DES provides similar long-term (up to 5.2 years) clinical outcomes except for TVR compared with CABG. Complex and simple stenting yielded similar outcomes except for a higher TVR rate in complex stenting.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
- chest pain clinic
- coronary artery disease
- coronary artery bypass grafting
- coronary intervention (PCI)
- coronary stenting
- fractional flow reserve
- interventional cardiology
- intravascular ultrasound
- left main bifurcation disease
- percutaneous coronary intervention
- radionuclide imaging
Competing interests None.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the institutional review board at each hospital.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.