Long-term outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention to an unprotected left main coronary artery in cardiogenic shock
Introduction
Several studies have shown a significant benefit following the treatment of left main stenosis with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery compared with medical treatment or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable coronary artery disease [1,2]. CABG has thus, until recently, been considered as the gold standard treatment of left main coronary artery (LM) disease in the stable setting [3,4]. However, in the setting of an acute coronary syndrome with cardiogenic shock, acute LM occlusion leads to a large area of at risk myocardium, a high burden of arrhythmia and a very high risk of early mortality. There is limited information available on short and longer-term outcomes in the setting of cardiogenic shock with a significant LM stenosis. Time to revascularization is often delayed with CABG and there is significant morbidity associated with surgical revascularization when performed emergently [5]. Therefore, emergent PCI to the LM is often performed as the preferred treatment despite a paucity of information regarding the long-term outcomes after this approach.
The aim of this study was to analyze the multi-centre Australian Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) Registry, to identify the short and long-term outcomes after isolated LM stenting compared to non-LM PCI in patients with cardiogenic shock.
Section snippets
Methods
This is a multi-centre, observational cohort study of consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing PCI from January 1, 2005 to November 30, 2013 enrolled in the MIG registry. Patients with previous CABG were excluded. Patients with cardiogenic shock with PCI to an LM were compared to those with a PCI to a non-LM.
Cardiogenic shock was defined as a sustained (>30 min) episode of systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90 mmHg (or vasopressors required to maintain SBP ≥ 90 mmHg), evidence of
Results
Of a total of 18,069 PCI procedures (excluding prior CABG) performed during the period of 1st January 2005 to 30th November 2013, 601 procedures were performed in the setting of cardiogenic shock. Among patients with cardiogenic shock, 45 patients (7.5%) had an LM PCI and 556 patients (92.5%) had a non-LM PCI.
Table 1 shows the baseline demographic, clinical and procedural characteristics of the two groups. Those that had an LM PCI in this setting were significantly older, were more likely to
Discussion
The most striking finding in our study is the very high rate of mortality of LM PCI in the setting of cardiogenic shock, especially early. After discharge, LM PCI survivors exhibited a plateau phase relative to the in-hospital period, although their long-term mortality was still significantly higher than the non-LM group. The LM cohort was older with a lower baseline LVEF but was significantly less likely to present with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or STEMI. After adjustment for the
Conclusion
Outcomes after PCI to an LM in cardiogenic shock are very poor with much of the excess mortality occurring early, despite improvements in PCI technique with high rates of procedural success. Given the paucity of evidence, the decision to perform CABG or PCI in patients with cardiogenic shock and LM disease still needs to be individualized, taking into account hemodynamic status, coronary anatomy, procedural and operator factors such as experience and immediate availability. Rigorous evaluation
Authorship statement
All authors take responsibility for all aspects of the reliability and freedom from bias of the data presented and the discussed interpretation.
Disclosures
Professor Stephen Duffy's work is supported by a NHMRC grant. Professor Reid is supported by a NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship (reference no. 1045862). A/Prof Stub is supported by a NHF Future Leader Fellowship (reference no. 101908), and a Viertel Foundation Clinical Investigator award.
The Melbourne Interventional Group acknowledges funding from Abbott Vascular, Astra-Zeneca, BMS and Pfizer. These companies do not have access to data and do not have the right to review manuscripts or
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Julian Yeoh: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Nick Andrianopoulos: Formal analysis. Christopher M. Reid: Writing - review & editing. Matias B. Yudi: Writing - review & editing. Garry Hamilton: Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Melaine Freeman: Writing - review & editing. Samer Noaman: Writing - review & editing. Ernesto Oqueli: Writing - review & editing. Sandra Picardo: Writing - review & editing. Angela Brennan: Methodology. William Chan:
Acknowledgements
MIG Data Management Centre, CCRE, Monash University:
Professor Chris Reid, Dr. Nick Andrianopoulos, Ms. Angela Brennan, Dr. Diem Dinh.
MIG Steering Committee:
Professor Chris Reid, Associate Professor Andrew Ajani, Professor Stephen Duffy
Associate Professor David Clark, Dr. Melanie Freeman, Dr. Chin Hiew
Associate Prof Ernesto Oqueli, Ms. Angela Brennan.
The following investigators, data managers and institutions participated in the MIG Database:
Alfred Hospital: SJ Duffy, D Stub, JA Shaw, A Walton,
References (27)
- et al.
Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration
Lancet
(1994) - et al.
Meta-analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease
Am. J. Cardiol.
(2017) - et al.
The foundation and launch of the Melbourne interventional group: a collaborative interventional cardiology project
Heart Lung Circ.
(2006) - et al.
Progress towards a National Cardiac Procedure Database--development of the Australasian Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ASCTS) and Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) registries
Heart Lung Circ.
(2011) - et al.
Long-term safety and efficacy of stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: 5-year results from the MAIN-COMPARE (revascularization for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: comparison of percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus surgical revascularization) registry
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2010) - et al.
Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis a meta-analysis
JACC Cardiovasc. Interv.
(2010) - et al.
Outcome after surgery and percutaneous intervention for cardiogenic shock and left main disease
Ann. Thorac. Surg.
(2008) - et al.
A systematic review and meta-analysis on primary percutaneous coronary intervention of an unprotected left main coronary artery culprit lesion in the setting of acute myocardial infarction
JACC Cardiovasc. Interv.
(2013) - et al.
Experience from a randomized controlled trial with Impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock. Lessons learned from the IMPRESS in STEMI trial
Int. J. Cardiol.
(2016) - et al.
Trends in the use of mechanical circulatory support devices in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
JACC Cardiovasc. Interv.
(2015)
Characteristics and long term outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes due to culprit left main coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention
Am. Heart J.
2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
Cited by (3)
Real-world long-term survival after non-emergent percutaneous coronary intervention to unprotected left main coronary artery — From the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) registry
2024, Cardiovascular Revascularization MedicineLong-Term Follow-Up of Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury: A Study from a Developing Country
2020, International Journal of Vascular Medicine