Operator Experience and Outcomes After Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
- 36 Downloads
Purpose of Review
This review was performed with the goal of summarizing the role of operator experience in the treatment of severe left main stenosis by percutaneous intervention techniques.
The Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial demonstrated that percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting had similar clinical outcomes for severe left main disease. However, PCI of the left main coronary stenosis is considered to be a high-risk intervention because of the large area of myocardium at jeopardy that can quickly cause hemodynamic compromise. Operator experience and familiarity with the use of hemodynamic support devices, plaque modification techniques, and intravascular imaging tools is associated with better clinical outcomes.
In patients with severe left main stenosis undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention by high-volume operators, the clinical outcomes are superior.
KeywordsOperator experience Left main Percutaneous coronary intervention High-risk intervention Hemodynamic support
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Arun Kanmanthareddy, Dixitha Anugula, and Biswajit Kar declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance
- 4.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(3):357–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20709.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.•• Makikallio T, Holm NR, Lindsay M, Spence MS, Erglis A, Menown IB, 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(10061):2743–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32052-9. This randomized trial compared percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting for severe left main stenosis and concluded that coronary artery bypass grafting was superior to percutaneous coronary intervention at 5 years. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.•• Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW, Simonton CA, Genereux P, Puskas J, et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(23):2223–35. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1610227. This randomized trial compared percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting for severe left main stenosis and concluded that there was no difference between the two treatment arms at 3 years. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Tian J, Guan C, Wang W, Zhang K, Chen J, Wu Y, et al. Intravascular ultrasound guidance improves the long-term prognosis in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):2377. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02649-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 10.Fan ZG, Gao XF, Li XB, Shao MX, Gao YL, Chen SL, et al. The outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation among patients with complex coronary lesions: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 15 clinical trials and 8,084 patients. Anatol J Cardiol. 2017;17(4):258–68. https://doi.org/10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2016.7461.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 11.Kang SJ, Ahn JM, Song H, Kim WJ, Lee JY, Park DW, et al. Comprehensive intravascular ultrasound assessment of stent area and its impact on restenosis and adverse cardiac events in 403 patients with unprotected left main disease. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(6):562–9. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.964643.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.•• Xu B, Redfors B, Yang Y, Qiao S, Wu Y, Chen J, et al. Impact of operator experience and volume on outcomes after left main coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(20):2086–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2016.08.011. This study demonstrated that operators with greater experience and volumes had better clinical outcomes for left main percutaneous coronary interventions. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Fujii K, Mintz GS, Kobayashi Y, Carlier SG, Takebayashi H, Yasuda T, et al. Contribution of stent underexpansion to recurrence after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for in-stent restenosis. Circulation. 2004;109(9):1085–8. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000121327.67756.19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Schreiber T, Wah Htun W, Blank N, Telila T, Mercado N, Briasoulis A, et al. Real-world supported unprotected left main percutaneous coronary intervention with impella device; data from the USpella registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;90:576–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26979.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.O’Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, Henriques JP, Dixon S, Massaro J, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation. 2012;126(14):1717–27. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.098194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Tomasello SD, Boukhris M, Ganyukov V, Galassi AR, Shukevich D, Haes B, et al. Outcome of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for complex high-risk elective percutaneous coronary interventions: a single-center experience. Heart Lung. 2015;44(4):309–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2015.03.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Badheka AO, Patel NJ, Grover P, Singh V, Patel N, Arora S, et al. Impact of annual operator and institutional volume on percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes: a 5-year United States experience (2005–2009). Circulation. 2014;130(16):1392–406. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.009281.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Toyofuku M, Kimura T, Morimoto T, Hayashi Y, Ueda H, Kawai K, et al. Three-year outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: insights from the j-Cypher registry. Circulation. 2009;120(19):1866–74. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.873349.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Palmerini T, Sangiorgi D, Marzocchi A, Tamburino C, Sheiban I, Margheri M, et al. Ostial and midshaft lesions vs. bifurcation lesions in 1111 patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents: results of the survey from the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2009;30(17):2087–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehp223.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar