AbstractSignificant unprotected left main (LM) coronary artery disease is frequently associated with severe multivessel disease and increased mortality and morbidity compared with non-LM coronary artery disease. This study compared the clinical outcomes of patients with LM disease who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting, conventional coronary-artery bypass grafting (C-CABG), and robot-assisted CABG (R-CABG).This retrospective study analyzed 472 consecutive LM disease patients who underwent three different revascularization approaches at a tertiary medical center between January 2005 and November 2013.Of the 472 LM disease patients, 139 received R-CABG, 147 received C-CABG, and 186 received PCI. The need for target vessel revascularization (TVR) was highest in the PCI group. The R-CABG group had significantly lower rates of in-hospital and follow-up all-cause deaths compared with the other 2 groups (1.4% vs. 3.4% and 9.7%, P = .0058; 13.7% vs. 29.3% and 29.6%, P = .0023, respectively). Patients in the R-CABG group had significantly lower rates of intra-aortic balloon pump assistance, and shorter duration of ICU and total hospital stay compared to patients in the C-CABG group. However, revascularization modality, SYNTAX scores, and residual SYNTAX scores were not independent predictors of in-hospital or long-term mortality.In this cohort of LM disease patients treated at a tertiary medical center, PCI is a reasonable choice in patients with less lesion complexity but who are older and have comorbidities. R-CABG is feasible in stable LM disease patients with high SYNTAX scores, and is an effective alternative to C-CABG in LM disease patients with few risk factors. However, revascularization modality per se was not a determinant for long-term mortality in our real-world practice.
Medicine – Wolters Kluwer Health
Published: Feb 1, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud