Comparison of one-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndromes (from the CUSTOMIZE Registry)

Abstract

Uncertainty surrounds the optimal revascularization strategy for patients with left main coronary artery disease presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs), and adequately sized specific comparisons of percutaneous and surgical revascularization in this scenario are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in patients with left main coronary artery disease and ACS treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and drug-eluting stent implantation or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). A total of 583 patients were included. At 1 year, MACEs were significantly higher in patients treated with PCI (n = 222) compared to those treated with CABG (n = 361, 14.4% vs 5.3%, p <0.001), driven by a higher rate of target lesion revascularization (8.1% vs 1.7%, p = 0.001). This finding was consistent after statistical adjustment for MACEs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 to 5.9, p = 0.01) and target lesion revascularization (adjusted HR 8.0, 95% CI 2.2 to 28.7, p = 0.001). No statistically significant differences between PCI and CABG were noted for death (adjusted HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.4 to 3.0, p = 0.81) and myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 4.8, 95% CI 0.3 to 68.6, p = 0.25). No interaction between clinical presentation (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) and treatment (PCI or CABG) was observed (p for interaction = 0.68). In conclusion, in patients with left main coronary artery disease and ACS, PCI is associated with similar safety compared to CABG but higher risk of MACEs driven by increased risk of repeat revascularization.