Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 1998;98:1587-1590

This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Molina, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Erbel, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Molina, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Erbel, R.

(Circulation. 1998;98:1587-1590.)
© 1998 American Heart Association, Inc.


Correspondence

Percutaneous Treatment of Left Main Coronary Stenosis

J. Ernesto Molina, MD

Professor of Surgery Cardiovascular & Thoracic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn

To the Editor:

The multicenter report by Dr Ellis and colleagues1 of 107 patients with left main coronary obstruction who were not candidates for surgery and in whom an attempt was made to reopen the left main coronary vessel by percutaneous techniques with different devices has significant implications for the cardiac surgeon when the patient is a candidate for a surgical procedure. Ellis et al deserve to be congratulated for this important piece of information.

There have been numerous reports of patients who have undergone direct attempts to widen the left main trunk of the coronary artery to provide antegrade flow when the distal branches are not significantly involved with obstructions. One of the main complications of this approach is early restenosis of the vessel and, occasionally, total occlusion, with fatal consequences for the patient.

It appears that the main trunk of the coronary artery reacts unfavorably to endarterectomy procedures or any type of trauma damaging the intima. Occlusion of the left main artery has been reported after radiofrequency ablation for left-sided tachycardias2 3 4 and after PTCAs done in the left coronary system.5 6 This has been seen after plain cardiac catheterization when the tip of the catheter injures the intima or when perfusion cannulas are positioned in coronary arteries directly to infuse cardioplegia during aortic valve surgery.7 8 9 10

In our institution, we had a case in which the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and the circumflex had separate origins from the aorta, both showing ostial obstructions. The LAD was given a saphenous patch at the ostia to widen its diameter, and the circumflex vessel was treated with an endarterectomy because its orifice was immediately below the LAD origin. Within a few days, the artery undergoing endarterectomy developed severe obstruction that required reoperation, but not so the LAD.

My question addresses this issue: In 53 patients, stents were implanted; in the other 54, only balloon angioplasty was performed. At the time of repeated angiography, 14.3% of the case patients who underwent stent implants were restenosed versus 50% of patients in whom only PTCA was performed (Table 6).1

The authors mention under "Post–Hospital Discharge Outcome" that 9 survivors (10.6%) died of cardiac causes within 6 months. I wonder whether the important factor is not the presence of unstable angina or age but the fact that these patients did not have stents placed. In this same section, we read: "Of patients eligible for >4-month angiography, 70% had known studies, of whom 22.0% had restenosis (stenosis >=50%)." The only variable related to risk of restenosis was ostial left main trunk, but I wonder whether the complication occurs due to lack of use of stents.

References

1. Ellis SG, Tamai H, Nobuyoshi M, Kosuga K, Colombo A, Holmes DR, Macaya C, Grines CL, Whitlow PL, White HJ, Moses J, Teirstein PS, Serruys PW, Bittl JA, Mooney MR, Shimshak TM, Block PC, Erbel R. Contemporary percutaneous treatment of unprotected left main coronary stenoses: initial results from a multicenter registry analysis 1994–1996. Circulation. 1997;96:3867–3872.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Kosinski DJ, Burket MW, Durzinsky D. Occlusion of the left main coronary artery during radiofrequency ablation for the Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome. Eur J Cardiac Pacing Electrophysiol. 1993;1:63–66.

3. Hope EJ, Haigney MC, Calkins H, Resar JR. Left main coronary thrombosis after radiofrequency ablation: successful treatment with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. Am Heart J. 1995;129:1217–1219.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

4. Pons M, Beck L, Leclercq F, Ferriere M, Albat B, Davy JM. Chronic left main coronary artery occlusion: a complication of radiofrequency ablation of idiopathic left ventricular tachycardia. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1997;20:1874–1876.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

5. Graf RH, Verani MS. Left main coronary artery stenosis: a possible complication of transluminal coronary angioplasty. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1984;10:163–166.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

6. Waller BF, Finkerton CA, Foster LN. Morphologic evidence of accelerated left main coronary artery stenosis: a late complication of percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;9:1019–1023.[Abstract]

7. Pennington DG, Dincer B, Bashiti H, Barner HB, Kaiser GC, Tyras DH, Codd JE, Willman VL. Coronary artery stenosis following aortic valve replacement and intermittent intracoronary cardioplegia. Ann Thorac Surg. 1982;33:576–584.[Abstract]

8. Prachar H, Muhlbauer J, Pollack H, Enenkel W. Iatrogenic left main coronary artery stenosis following aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J. 1988;9:1151–1154.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

9. Molina JE. Coronary stenosis following aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 1983;35:473–474. Letter.

10. Barner HB, Fiore AC. Update on left coronary ostial stenosis: comparison with left main coronary artery stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;64:282–283.[Free Full Text]

Response

Stephen G. Ellis, MD

Director, Sones Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Professor of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Cleveland, Ohio

Hideo Tamai, MD; Masakiyo Nobuyoshi, MD; Kunihiko Kosuga, MD; Antonio Colombo, MD; David R. Holmes, MD; Carlos Macaya, MD; Cindy L. Grines, MD; Patrick L. Whitlow, MD; Harvey J. White, MD; Jeffrey Moses, MD; Paul S. Teirstein, MD; Patrick W. Serruys, MD; John A. Bittl, MD; Michael R. Mooney, MD; Thomas M. Shimshak, MD; Peter C. Block, MD; ; Raimund Erbel, MD

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio

Dr Molina addresses a key issue with regard to assessment of the clinical safety and utility of percutaneous interventions for patients with unprotected left main coronary stenoses. In experienced centers and in patients with relatively well-preserved left ventricular function, a percutaneous approach (either stenting or directional atherectomy) seems to be reasonably safe, at least in the short run. A better understanding of the risk of cardiac death within the first year after treatment is needed, however, and Dr Molina suggests that perhaps the 11% incidence of this untoward outcome in our initial series is due to the fact that only half the patients received coronary stents. This issue has certainly drawn our attention also, and in fact, we have extended our registry to include over 270 consecutively treated patients and specifically addressed this issue in a recent analysis (J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:214A). In this analysis, 9% of patients died within 9 months after initially successful treatment, and in multivariate logistic regression analysis, left ventricular ejection fraction <=30% and initial presentation with rest or progressive angina were both significant independent correlates of death (multivariate odds ratios 17.1 and 4.3, respectively). Stenting and directional atherectomy tended to be offered to lower-risk patients more often than was balloon angioplasty. After adjustment for the aforementioned risk factors, there was only a trend suggesting added risk with balloon angioplasty (P=0.13) compared with both stenting and directional coronary atherectomy. There was no discernible difference with regard to outcome between stenting and atherectomy. We recognize that this sort of analysis cannot always fully adjust for unmeasured variables, but short of a randomized trial, this is the best answer we have. Given that the in-hospital cardiac mortality rate for patients with ejection fraction >30% who present with stable angina and who are treated with directional atherectomy or stenting is only 1.3% in this series and their 9-month mortality rate is 4.4%, it may be that now is an appropriate time for a randomized, controlled trial in such patients against the current gold standard: bypass surgery.





This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Molina, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Erbel, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Molina, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Erbel, R.