Cargando…

Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Protected versus Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Insights from the VA CART Program

BACKGROUND: Practice patterns and outcomes of protected left main (PLM) and unprotected left main (ULM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), as well as the differences between these types of PCI, are not well defined in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: Data collected from all Veteran Affa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gonzalez, Pedro Engel, Hebbe, Annika, Hussain, Yasin, Khera, Rohan, Banerjee, Subhash, Plomondon, Mary E, Waldo, Stephen W., Pfau, Steven E., Curtis, Jeptha P., Shah, Samit M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10635229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37961093
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.27.23297698
_version_ 1785146308286218240
author Gonzalez, Pedro Engel
Hebbe, Annika
Hussain, Yasin
Khera, Rohan
Banerjee, Subhash
Plomondon, Mary E
Waldo, Stephen W.
Pfau, Steven E.
Curtis, Jeptha P.
Shah, Samit M.
author_facet Gonzalez, Pedro Engel
Hebbe, Annika
Hussain, Yasin
Khera, Rohan
Banerjee, Subhash
Plomondon, Mary E
Waldo, Stephen W.
Pfau, Steven E.
Curtis, Jeptha P.
Shah, Samit M.
author_sort Gonzalez, Pedro Engel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Practice patterns and outcomes of protected left main (PLM) and unprotected left main (ULM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), as well as the differences between these types of PCI, are not well defined in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: Data collected from all Veteran Affairs (VA) catheterization laboratories participating in the Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking Program between 2009 and 2019. The analysis included 4,351 patients undergoing left main PCI, of which 1,306 pairs of PLM and ULM PCI were included in a propensity matched cohort. Patients and procedural characteristics were compared between PLM and ULM PCI. Temporal trends were also assessed. Peri-procedural and one-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were compared using cumulative incidence plots. The primary outcome was MACE outcomes at 1-year, which was defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, rehospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI), rehospitalization for stroke or urgent revascularization. RESULTS: ULM PCI patients in comparison to PLM PCI were older (71.5 vs 69.2; P < 0.001), more clinically complex and more likely to present with ACS. In the propensity matched cohort, radial access was used more often for ULM PCI (21% [273] vs. 14% [185], P < 0.001), and ULM PCI was more likely to involve the LM bifurcation (22% vs 14%; P = 0.003) and require mechanical circulatory support (10% [134] vs 1% [17]; P <0.001). One-year MACE occurred more frequently with ULM PCI compared to PLM PCI (22% [289] vs. 16% [215]; P = < 0.001) and all-cause mortality was also higher (16% [213] vs. 10% [125]; P = < 0.001). In the matched cohort there was a low incidence of rehospitalization for MI (4% [48] ULM vs. 4% [48] PLM; P = 1.000) or revascularization (7% [94] ULM vs. 6% [84] PLM; P = 0.485). CONCLUSIONS: Veterans undergoing PLM PCI had better one-year outcomes than those undergoing ULM PCI, but in both groups there was a high rate of mortality and MACE at one-year despite a relatively low rate of MI or revascularization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10635229
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106352292023-11-13 Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Protected versus Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Insights from the VA CART Program Gonzalez, Pedro Engel Hebbe, Annika Hussain, Yasin Khera, Rohan Banerjee, Subhash Plomondon, Mary E Waldo, Stephen W. Pfau, Steven E. Curtis, Jeptha P. Shah, Samit M. medRxiv Article BACKGROUND: Practice patterns and outcomes of protected left main (PLM) and unprotected left main (ULM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), as well as the differences between these types of PCI, are not well defined in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: Data collected from all Veteran Affairs (VA) catheterization laboratories participating in the Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking Program between 2009 and 2019. The analysis included 4,351 patients undergoing left main PCI, of which 1,306 pairs of PLM and ULM PCI were included in a propensity matched cohort. Patients and procedural characteristics were compared between PLM and ULM PCI. Temporal trends were also assessed. Peri-procedural and one-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were compared using cumulative incidence plots. The primary outcome was MACE outcomes at 1-year, which was defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, rehospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI), rehospitalization for stroke or urgent revascularization. RESULTS: ULM PCI patients in comparison to PLM PCI were older (71.5 vs 69.2; P < 0.001), more clinically complex and more likely to present with ACS. In the propensity matched cohort, radial access was used more often for ULM PCI (21% [273] vs. 14% [185], P < 0.001), and ULM PCI was more likely to involve the LM bifurcation (22% vs 14%; P = 0.003) and require mechanical circulatory support (10% [134] vs 1% [17]; P <0.001). One-year MACE occurred more frequently with ULM PCI compared to PLM PCI (22% [289] vs. 16% [215]; P = < 0.001) and all-cause mortality was also higher (16% [213] vs. 10% [125]; P = < 0.001). In the matched cohort there was a low incidence of rehospitalization for MI (4% [48] ULM vs. 4% [48] PLM; P = 1.000) or revascularization (7% [94] ULM vs. 6% [84] PLM; P = 0.485). CONCLUSIONS: Veterans undergoing PLM PCI had better one-year outcomes than those undergoing ULM PCI, but in both groups there was a high rate of mortality and MACE at one-year despite a relatively low rate of MI or revascularization. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory 2023-10-28 /pmc/articles/PMC10635229/ /pubmed/37961093 http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.27.23297698 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Gonzalez, Pedro Engel
Hebbe, Annika
Hussain, Yasin
Khera, Rohan
Banerjee, Subhash
Plomondon, Mary E
Waldo, Stephen W.
Pfau, Steven E.
Curtis, Jeptha P.
Shah, Samit M.
Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Protected versus Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Insights from the VA CART Program
title Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Protected versus Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Insights from the VA CART Program
title_full Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Protected versus Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Insights from the VA CART Program
title_fullStr Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Protected versus Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Insights from the VA CART Program
title_full_unstemmed Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Protected versus Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Insights from the VA CART Program
title_short Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Protected versus Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Insights from the VA CART Program
title_sort outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for protected versus unprotected left main coronary artery disease: insights from the va cart program
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10635229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37961093
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.27.23297698
work_keys_str_mv AT gonzalezpedroengel outcomesofpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforprotectedversusunprotectedleftmaincoronaryarterydiseaseinsightsfromthevacartprogram
AT hebbeannika outcomesofpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforprotectedversusunprotectedleftmaincoronaryarterydiseaseinsightsfromthevacartprogram
AT hussainyasin outcomesofpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforprotectedversusunprotectedleftmaincoronaryarterydiseaseinsightsfromthevacartprogram
AT kherarohan outcomesofpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforprotectedversusunprotectedleftmaincoronaryarterydiseaseinsightsfromthevacartprogram
AT banerjeesubhash outcomesofpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforprotectedversusunprotectedleftmaincoronaryarterydiseaseinsightsfromthevacartprogram
AT plomondonmarye outcomesofpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforprotectedversusunprotectedleftmaincoronaryarterydiseaseinsightsfromthevacartprogram
AT waldostephenw outcomesofpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforprotectedversusunprotectedleftmaincoronaryarterydiseaseinsightsfromthevacartprogram
AT pfaustevene outcomesofpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforprotectedversusunprotectedleftmaincoronaryarterydiseaseinsightsfromthevacartprogram
AT curtisjepthap outcomesofpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforprotectedversusunprotectedleftmaincoronaryarterydiseaseinsightsfromthevacartprogram
AT shahsamitm outcomesofpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforprotectedversusunprotectedleftmaincoronaryarterydiseaseinsightsfromthevacartprogram