760 IMPACT OF COMORBIDITIES AND PATIENTS PREFERENCE ON THE CHOICE BETWEEN PERCUTANEOUS OR SURGICAL REVASCULARIZATION FOR LEFT MAIN CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE. (15th December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chiarito, Mauro; Oliva, Angelo; Novelli, Laura; Terzi, Riccardo; Sturla, Matteo; Lacevic, Emir; Carnabuci, Anna Giulia; Regazzoli, Damiano; Mangieri, Antonio; Sticchi, Alessandro; Ferrante, Giuseppe; Gasparini, Gabriele; Pagnotta, Paolo; Colombo, Antonio; Mehran, Roxana; Torracca, Lucia; Condorelli, Gianluigi; Reimers, Bernhard; Stefanini, Giulio G
• Is Part Of: European heart journal supplements. Volume 24(2022)Supplement K
• Publication Date: 2022-12-15
• Subjects: Cardiology -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Europe -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suac121.376
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1520-765X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Recent evidence has rendered percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) a valuable alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). Nevertheless, the optimal management and patients selection is still subject to discussion Methods: We retrospectively included 431 patients treated with PCI and 324 patients treated with CABG with the primary objective of comparing procedural failure according to revascularization strategy. Secondary endpoints were post procedural and clinically relevant myocardial infarction, in-hospital stroke, major bleeding defined according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, death, and 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results: There was no observed difference in the rates of procedure failure in patients who received PCI compared to patients who received CABG (4.6% vs 3.7%, respectively) odds ratio [OR] 1.26; (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.58-2.9, p= 0.52.) There was no significant difference in the defined ischemic outcome for PCI vs CABG (0.9% vs 2.4%, respectively) OR 0.37; (95% CI 0.08-1.4), P = 0.09. There was a mild increase in periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) after PCI (4.2% vs 1.5%) compared to CABG; (OR = 2.8; 95% CI 0.99-9.8, P = 0.034). On the contrary there was a higher risk of major bleeding and transfusions in the patients who had been treated with CABG who has a clinical profile suited for PCI. Conclusions: PCI did not significantly increase the risk for procedural failure or ischemic events compared to CABG in patients with LM CAD. The higher risk for post-procedural MI after PCI was offset by a higher risk for major bleeding events and transfusion requirements in those undergoing CABG, especially for those who were clinically suited for PCI.