Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 25, 2026
Surgical Porcine Model of Chronic Myocardial Ischemia Treated by Exosome-laden Collagen Patch and Off-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Graft
Published on: September 15, 2023
Long term results of unprotected left main percutaneous coronary intervention with DES versus BMS
D Capodanno1, M E Di Salvo, P Capranzano
1Department of Cardiology, University of Catania Ferrarotto Hospital, Catania, Italy.
Aim:
Stenosis in the unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) is considered a standard indication for surgical revascularization. Some studies have demonstrated that stenting of the ULMCA is safe and feasible in selected patients. Drug eluting stents (DES) have been shown to be superior to bare metal stents (BMS) in reducing restenosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) both in-hospital and at follow-up after treatment of ULMCA disease. Several studies showed that the mid-term prognosis of patients with left main stenting is good, but most of them are limited by small populations and the availability of mid-term results. Thus, we sought to evaluate the very long term impact of DES vs BMS in a large cohort of patients undergoing stent implantation for ULMCA disease in our center.
Methods:
Between June 2002 and June 2008 a total of 354 consecutive patients with ULMCA stenosis were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention with BMS (53 patients) or DES (301 patients) implantation. A multivariable adjustment was provided in order to account for baseline differences between groups.
Results:
The average clinical follow-up was 551+/-512 days. Overall, MACE rate was significantly lower in the DES group (16.6% vs 26.4%, P=0.02). The beneficial effect was driven by a reduction of death (6.0% vs 9.4%, P=0.11), MI (2.7% vs 3.8%, P=0.33) and target vessel revascularization after DES implantation (9.0 % vs 15.1%, P=0.11). After correcting for independent predictors of adverse events, the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the risk of mortality and myocardial infarction after DES implantation relative to BMS implantation were 0.99 (95% CIs 0.30-3.21, P=0.98) and 0.59 (95% CIs 0.01-3.45, P=0.56), respectively. The adjusted HR for two-year MACE was 0.50 (95 CIs 0.25-1.02), P=0.056, mainly driven by a statistical significant reduction of TVR (HR 0.30 [95 CIs 0.11-0.82], P=0.018].
Conclusions:
Patients presenting with ULMCA disease, who are treated with DES have a significant reduction in the rate of target lesion revascularization with no increased risk of death or myocardial infarction.
