Korean Circulation Journal

  • 제48권6호
  • /
  • Pages.447-462
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1738-5520(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1738-5555(eISSN)
대한심장학회 (The Korean Society of Cardiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Revascularization for Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Current Status and Future Prospects after the EXCEL and NOBLE Trials

  • Al-Hijji, Mohammed (Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic) ;
  • El Sabbagh, Abdallah (Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic) ;
  • Holmes, David R. (Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic)
  • 투고 : 2018.03.04
  • 심사 : 2018.04.18
  • 발행 : 2018.06.30
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Revascularization of severe left main and multivessel coronary artery disease has been shown to improve survival in both stable ischemic heart disease and acute coronary syndrome. While revascularization with coronary artery bypass surgery for these disease entities carries class I recommendation in most current guidelines, recent trials has shown potential comparable survival and cardiovascular outcomes between percutaneous and surgical interventions in patients with less complex coronary anatomy. Despite the conflicting results observed in the most recent left main revascularization trials, Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease (EXCEL) and Nordic-Baltic-British left main revascularization (NOBLE), both treatment strategies remain important for the management of left main disease (LMD) and multivessel disease (MVD) reflecting on the importance of heart team discussion. This review is focused on revascularization of LMD and MVD in patients who are not presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, encompassing the evidence from historic and contemporary trials which shaped up current practices. This review discusses the heart team approach to guide decision making, including special populations that are not represented in clinical trials.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Goetz RH, Rohman M, Haller JD, Dee R, Rosenak SS. Internal mammary-coronary artery anastomosis. A nonsuture method employing tantalum rings. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1961;41:378-86.
  2. Gruentzig A. Results from coronary angioplasty and implications for the future. Am Heart J 1982;103:779-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-8703(82)90486-0
  3. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1503-16. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa070829
  4. Hueb W, Lopes NH, Gersh BJ, et al. Five-year follow-up of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): a randomized controlled clinical trial of 3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 2007;115:1082-9. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.625475
  5. Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Deja MA, et al. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1607-16. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1100356
  6. Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Jones RH, et al. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1511-20. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1602001
  7. Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, 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;344:563-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(94)91963-1
  8. Kaiser GC, Davis KB, Fisher LD, et al. Survival following coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with severe angina pectoris (CASS). An observational study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1985;89:513-24.
  9. Serruys PW, Ong AT, van Herwerden LA, et al. Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:575-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.12.082
  10. Hueb W, Lopes N, Gersh BJ, et al. Ten-year follow-up survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): a randomized controlled clinical trial of 3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 2010;122:949-57. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.911669
  11. Buszman PE, Buszman PP, Banasiewicz-Szkrobka I, et al. Left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization: 10-year outcomes of the (Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting) LE MANS Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9:318-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2015.10.044
  12. Ahn JM, Roh JH, Kim YH, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease: 5-year outcomes of the PRECOMBAT study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:2198-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.033
  13. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP, et al. Five-year outcomes in patients with left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery trial. Circulation 2014;129:2388-94. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006689
  14. Head SJ, Davierwala PM, Serruys PW, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with three-vessel disease: final five-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J 2014;35:2821-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu213
  15. Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW, et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease N Engl J Med 2016;375:2223-35. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1610227
  16. Makikallio T, Holm NR, Lindsay M, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016;388:2743-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32052-9
  17. Ragosta M, Dee S, Sarembock IJ, Lipson LC, Gimple LW, Powers ER. Prevalence of unfavorable angiographic characteristics for percutaneous intervention in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006;68:357-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20709
  18. Bruschke AV, Proudfit WL, Sones FM Jr. Progress study of 590 consecutive nonsurgical cases of coronary disease followed 5-9 years. II. Ventriculographic and other correlations. Circulation 1973;47:1154-63. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.47.6.1154
  19. Park SJ, Kim YH, Park DW, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1718-27. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1100452
  20. Taggart DP, Kaul S, Boden WE, et al. Revascularization for unprotected left main stem coronary artery stenosis stenting or surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:885-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.09.067
  21. 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;360:961-72. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0804626
  22. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP, et al. Outcomes in patients with de novo left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention using paclitaxel-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass graft treatment in the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial. Circulation 2010;121:2645-53. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.899211
  23. Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal coronary stents: a mixed-treatment comparison analysis of 117 762 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials. Circulation 2012;125:2873-91. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.097014
  24. Alazzoni A, Al-Saleh A, Jolly SS. Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Thrombosis 2012;2012:126369.
  25. Ye Y, Yang M, Zhang S, Zeng Y. Percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary artery disease with or without intravascular ultrasound: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2017;12:e0179756. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179756
  26. Chen SL, Xu B, Han YL, et al. Comparison of double kissing crush versus Culotte stenting for unprotected distal left main bifurcation lesions: results from a multicenter, randomized, prospective DKCRUSH-III study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1482-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.01.023
  27. Chen SL, Xu B, Han YL, et al. Clinical outcome after DK crush versus culotte stenting of distal left main bifurcation lesions: the 3-year follow-up results of the DKCRUSH-III study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8:1335-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2015.05.017
  28. Chen SL, Zhang JJ, Han Y, et al. Double kissing crush versus provisional stenting for left main distal bifurcation lesions: DKCRUSH-V randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:2605-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.09.1066
  29. Giacoppo D, Colleran R, Cassese S, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left main coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:1079-88. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2017.2895
  30. Capodanno D, Stone GW, Morice MC, Bass TA, Tamburino C. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical data. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:1426-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.07.005
  31. Sos Investigators. Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (the Stent or Surgery trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002;360:965-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11078-6
  32. Booth J, Clayton T, Pepper J, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: six-year follow-up from the Stent or Surgery Trial (SoS). Circulation 2008;118:381-8. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.739144
  33. Sipahi I, Akay MH, Dagdelen S, Blitz A, Alhan C. Coronary artery bypass grafting vs percutaneous coronary intervention and long-term mortality and morbidity in multivessel disease: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of the arterial grafting and stenting era. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:223-30. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12844
  34. Sarno G, Garg S, Onuma Y, et al. Impact of completeness of revascularization on the five-year outcome in percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft patients (from the ARTS-II study). Am J Cardiol 2010;106:1369-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.06.069
  35. Vieira RD, Hueb W, Gersh BJ, et al. Effect of complete revascularization on 10-year survival of patients with stable multivessel coronary artery disease: MASS II trial. Circulation 2012;126:S158-63.
  36. Cameron A, Davis KB, Green G, Schaff HV. Coronary bypass surgery with internal-thoracic-artery grafts--effects on survival over a 15-year period. N Engl J Med 1996;334:216-20. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199601253340402
  37. Fitzgibbon GM, Kafka HP, Leach AJ, Keon WJ, Hooper GD, Burton JR. Coronary bypass graft fate and patient outcome: angiographic follow-up of 5,065 grafts related to survival and reoperation in 1,388 patients during 25 years. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28:616-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(96)00206-9
  38. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2012;367:991-1001. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1205361
  39. Taggart DP, Altman DG, Gray AM, et al. Randomized trial of bilateral versus single internal-thoracic-artery grafts. N Engl J Med 2016;375:2540-9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1610021
  40. Goldman S, Sethi GK, Holman W, et al. Radial artery grafts vs saphenous vein grafts in coronary artery bypass surgery: a randomized trial. JAMA 2011;305:167-74. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1976
  41. Yamasaki M, Deb S, Tsubota H, et al. Comparison of radial artery and saphenous vein graft stenosis more than 5 years after coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2016;102:712-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.02.107
  42. Gansera B, Schmidtler F, Angelis I, Kiask T, Kemkes BM, Botzenhardt F. Patency of internal thoracic artery compared to vein grafts - postoperative angiographic findings in 1189 symptomatic patients in 12 years. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;55:412-7. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-965372
  43. Sardar P, Kundu A, Bischoff M, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018;91:203-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.27098
  44. Puskas JD, Halkos ME, DeRose JJ, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease: a multicenter observational study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68:356-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.05.032
  45. Abdallah MS, Wang K, Magnuson EA, et al. Quality of life after surgery or DES in patients with 3-vessel or left main disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:2039-50.
  46. Baron SJ, Chinnakondepalli K, Magnuson EA, et al. Quality-of-life after everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left-main disease: results from the EXCEL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:3113-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.036
  47. Osnabrugge RL, Magnuson EA, Serruys PW, et al. Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention versus bypass surgery from a Dutch perspective. Heart 2015;101:1980-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2015-307578
  48. Cohen DJ, Osnabrugge RL, Magnuson EA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus bypass surgery for patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: final results from the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial. Circulation 2014;130:1146-57. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.009985
  49. Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Morice MC, et al. Treatment of complex coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes: 5-year results comparing outcomes of bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in the SYNTAX trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2013;43:1006-13. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezt017
  50. Kapur A, Hall RJ, Malik IS, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients. 1-year results of the CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:432-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.10.014
  51. Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 2012;367:2375-84. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1211585
  52. Navarese EP, Kowalewski M, Kandzari D, et al. First-generation versus second-generation drug-eluting stents in current clinical practice: updated evidence from a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comprising 31 379 patients. Open Heart 2014;1:e000064. https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2014-000064
  53. Wolff G, Dimitroulis D, Andreotti F, et al. Survival benefits of invasive versus conservative strategies in heart failure in patients with reduced ejection fraction and coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Circ Heart Fail 2017;10:e003255. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.116.003255
  54. Hemmelgarn BR, Southern D, Culleton BF, Mitchell LB, Knudtson ML, Ghali WA. Survival after coronary revascularization among patients with kidney disease. Circulation 2004;110:1890-5. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000143629.55725.D9
  55. Chang TI, Shilane D, Kazi DS, Montez-Rath ME, Hlatky MA, Winkelmayer WC. Multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol 2012;23:2042-9. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2012060554
  56. Lu R, Tang F, Zhang Y, et al. Comparison of drug-eluting and bare metal stents in patients with chronic kidney disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2016;5:e003990. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.116.003990
  57. Kim HJ, Kim JB, Jung SH, Choo SJ, Lee JW, Chung CH. Coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with severe chronic kidney disease: a propensity score-weighted analysis on the impact of on-pump versus off-pump strategies. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2017;52:937-44. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezx288
  58. Wang Y, Zhu S, Gao P, Zhou J, Zhang Q. Off-pump versus on-pump coronary surgery in patients with chronic kidney disease: a meta-analysis. Clin Exp Nephrol 2018;22:99-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10157-017-1432-7
  59. Graham MM, Ghali WA, Faris PD, Galbraith PD, Norris CM, Knudtson ML. Survival after coronary revascularization in the elderly. Circulation 2002;105:2378-84. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000016640.99114.3D
  60. Ramanathan KB, Weiman DS, Sacks J, et al. Percutaneous intervention versus coronary bypass surgery for patients older than 70 years of age with high-risk unstable angina. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;80:1340-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.03.057
  61. McKellar SH, Brown ML, Frye RL, Schaff HV, Sundt TM 3rd. Comparison of coronary revascularization procedures in octogenarians: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 2008;5:738-46. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpcardio1348
  62. Varenne O, Cook S, Sideris G, et al. Drug-eluting stents in elderly patients with coronary artery disease (SENIOR): a randomised single-blind trial. Lancet 2018;391:41-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32713-7
  63. TIME Investigators. Trial of invasive versus medical therapy in elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary-artery disease (TIME): a randomised trial. Lancet 2001;358:951-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06100-1
  64. Authors/Task Force membersWindecker S, Kolh P, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 2014;35:2541-619. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu278
  65. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 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. Circulation 2011;124:e574-651. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e31823ba622
  66. Patel MR, Calhoon JH, Dehmer GJ, et al. ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2016 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Nucl Cardiol 2017;24:439-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-0780-8

피인용 문헌

  1. The correlation between SYNTAX score II and lipid panel and uric acid test results and diabetes mellitus in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease vol.13, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.15836/ccar2018.316
  2. Microsurgical technique in coronary bypass surgery: possibilities, perspectives and limitations vol.2019, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia201906180
  3. Melatonin, a toll‐like receptor inhibitor: Current status and future perspectives vol.234, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.27698
  4. Meta-Analysis Comparing the Risk of Myocardial Infarction Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel or Left Main Coronary Artery vol.124, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.06.009
  5. The association of baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide with short and long-term prognosis following percutaneous coronary intervention in non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrom vol.21, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-021-02010-9