Long-term results of stenting versus coronary artery bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease—A single-center experience

Background Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as an alternative treatment to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unprotected left main (LM) coronary artery disease, but the results of both treatments are less clear in real-world practice. We aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of unprotected LM disease treated with CABG or PCI with stenting in high-risk population from a single center. Methods We collected 478 consecutive patients with unprotected LM disease (PCI/CABG: 208/270; mean age: 70 ± 11 years; 85% male), and 252 patients were considered to be at high risk (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation ≥6). The median follow-up was 4.3 years (interquartile range: 2.7–6.5 years). Results All-cause death (PCI/CABG: 27.4%/31.5%; p = 0.36) and all-cause death/myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke (PCI/CABG: 30.8%/35.9%; p = 0.49) were comparable between the two groups, whereas the repeat revascularization rate was significantly higher in the PCI group (PCI/CABG: 22.6%/11.0%; p < 0.01). These results remained similar after adjustment with the propensity score. Notably, CABG tended to be associated with higher periprocedural mortality (adjusted p = 0.08) and long-term stroke (adjusted p = 0.05), while PCI was associated with higher long-term MI (adjusted p = 0.09). Analyses of the diabetic subgroup (PCI/CABG: 98/124) yielded similar results. Conclusion PCI was a comparable alternative to CABG for high-risk patients with unprotected LM disease in terms of long-term risks of all-cause death/MI/stroke, but with a significantly higher repeat revascularization rate.