Section 3 CABG versus PCI

### **Chapter 7**

## Is Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) Surgery Still Preferable to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) in View of Long-Term Outcomes among Diabetic Patients?

*Ahmad Farouk Musa*

### **Abstract**

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) is the preferred revascularization modality among diabetic patients due to extensive coronary involvement and elevated risk of restenosis. Since drug-eluting stent significantly reduces restenosis, we expect it to narrow down the long-term benefit-gap between these two revascularization strategies. In our review, we compare the long-term outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) to CABG in diabetic patients. While PCI can be a reasonable alternative to CABG at a low SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score, an intermediate-high SYNTAX score makes CABG necessary. In left main stem occlusion, PCI and CABG demonstrated similar long-term outcomes. However, in cases of bifurcation or unprotected left main stem disease, revascularization is best done via CABG. Indeed, CABG is the main revascularization therapy in multivessel involvement— it lowers the risk of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization at the expense of increasessd stroke. Glycaemic control, use of antiplatelet agents and feelings of disability are all factors that can potentially affect long-term outcomes. We expect hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) involving both robotic surgery and PCI to be the future trend in treating diabetic patients with multivessel disease, although its clinical use needs further studies.

**Keywords:** Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG), Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI), diabetic patients, long-term outcomes, hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR)

### **1. Introduction**

Revascularization is the preferred treatment procedure in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) and Percutaneous

Coronary Intervention (PCI), formerly known as Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA), are the two methods of revascularization that are widely performed worldwide. Contrary to CABG, PCI is less invasive. Moreover, it has a shorter procedural time and duration of hospital stay. Nonetheless, it is associated with a higher risk of repeat revascularization.

About 25–30% of patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are reported to have underlying diabetes [1]. Compared to their non-diabetic counterparts, diabetic patients suffer from a significantly higher rate of mortality and adverse events [2–4]. While early revascularization could enhance their prognosis, [5] the long-term merits of utilising either CABG or PCI are yet to be conclusively established.

### **2. Aim**

Our study aims to find out whether diabetic patients have a better long-term prognosis with PCI compared to CABG.

### **3. Methods**

Using PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane and Embase database, we conducted a literature search dating from January 2010 to June 2020 to locate relevant articles. We used Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms such as "diabetes mellitus", "Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty" and "Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery" to identify journal articles. We also cross-checked references to allow the selection of additional pertinent references.

Studies that were included fall into the following three categories: (1) they were published from January 2010 to June 2020; (2) they had a minimum duration of patient follow-up of five years; and (3) they involved revascularization of patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Studies that were excluded fall into the following four categories:


4.they involved repeat revascularization in patients with a history of CABG and PCI.

Based on the above inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction was performed. The primary endpoints were as follows: mortality rate, risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and repeat revascularization.

*Is Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) Surgery Still Preferable to Percutaneous Coronary… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104993*

### **4. Results**

Regarding left main stem disease (LMSD), both CABG and PTCA arms yielded similar mortality and composite endpoints of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke risk. Additionally, the CABG arm reported a lower risk of target vessel revascularization. **Table 1** below describes the randomized controlled trials and observational studies of PTCA versus CABG that were included in our analyses.



### *Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting*

*Is Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) Surgery Still Preferable to Percutaneous Coronary… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104993*


*LMSD: left main stem disease; MVD: multivessel disease; MI: myocardial infarction, PTCA: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, CABG: Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting, HR: hazard ratio, Cl: Confidence interval*

### **Table 1.**

*Randomised controlled trials and observational studies of PTCA vs CABG.*

In the case of multivessel disease (MVD), a significantly higher risk of repeat revascularization in patients undergoing PTCA was consistently reported in four observational studies and three randomised controlled trials. On the contrary, data regarding mortality rate, risk of myocardial infarction and stroke were inconsistent. We observed similar findings in Onuma's [8] and Kim's [10] study (Onuma: HR:1.11, 95% CI 0.47– 2.66 *p* = 0.81; Kim: HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.33, *p* = 0.96). However, PTCA incurred a higher mortality risk in other studies. One such study is the FREEDOM Follow-On study [14] that reports the survival rate of patients in the FREEDOM trial with an extended follow-up period. The authors Farkouh et al. [14] concluded that only after the second year follow-up did the mortality curves begin to separate; they also noted increasing discrepancy as the follow-up duration was extrapolated.

Meanwhile, the risk of myocardial infarction varied. While similar MI risk was observed in Onuma's study [8] (HR:1.19, 95% CI 0.38–3.76 *p* = 0.76) and BEST Trial [13] (HR: 1.76, 95% CI 0.87–3.58 *p* = 0.11), Contini's [9] (HR: 3.3, 95% CI 2.4–4.6 *p* < 0.0001) and FREEDOM study [12] (PTCA: 13.9% vs. CABG:6.0%; *p* < 0.001) reported a significantly higher risk in the PTCA arm. Likewise, Onuma's [8] (HR:1.24, 95% CI 0.42–3.65 *p* = 0.70), Contini's study [9] (HR: 0.8, 95% CI 0.5–1.2 *p* = 0.26) and BEST Trial [13] (HR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.39–1.93 *p* = 0.72) documented comparable risk of stroke. But this was not the case in FREEDOM study [12] (PTCA:2.4% vs. CABG: 5.2%; *p* = 0.03).

SYNTAX trial [15] compared treatment outcomes of PTCA and CABG in patients with LMS and/or MVD with a follow-up duration of five years. Using Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score, subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the adverse outcomes of each revascularization strategy. In SYNTAX trial, both groups demonstrated

### **Figure 1.**

*Funnel plot for assessment of publication bias of observational and randomised trials comparing CABG with PTCA for the endpoint of all-cause mortality. SE: Standard Error. RR: Risk Ratio.*

similar survival and other adverse outcomes rates. On the contrary, the PTCA group suffered a higher burden of repeat revascularization.

Referring to **Figure 1**, this study comprised ten studies (observational and randomised trials). It followed the rule of thumb regarding tests for funnel plot asymmetry: a minimum ten studies should be included in the meta-analyses. With fewer studies, the power of the tests is too low to tell apart chance from real asymmetry.

The Funnel Plot displayed a certain heterogeneity; only two studies were outliers. Conversely, Egger's test confirmed the plot asymmetry. (Heterogeneity: ChiSq = 21.60; df = 9; *p* = 0.01, I2 = 58%). This is not surprising since both observational and randomised trials were included. Moreover, publication bias cannot be ruled out since the funnel plot might have excluded smaller studies with negative outcomes.

**Table 2** refers to one study-level pooled analyses and four meta-analyses which compared the rate of mortality and adverse outcomes of PTCA-DES *vs* CABG in diabetic patients with a minimum five-year follow-up.



*Is Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) Surgery Still Preferable to Percutaneous Coronary… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104993*

*MVD: Multivessel Disease; LMSD: Left Main Stem Disease; F/U: follow-up, RCT: Randomised Controlled Trials; OS: Observational Studies, MI: Myocardial Infarction, PTCA: Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty, CABG: Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting, HR: Hazard Ratio, Cl: Confidence Interval, RR: Relative Risk, OR: Odds Ratio*

### **Table 2.**

*Meta analyses and pooled analyses of PTCA vs CABG in MVD and/or LMSD.*

The first systematic review and meta-analysis that reported the outcomes of PTCA-DES vs. CABG for MVD in diabetic patients was carried out by Hakeem [16]. Of the meta-analyses identified, Huang et al. [19] included the largest number of studies; their meta-analysis consisted of a total of 19 studies (four randomised controlled trials and 15 observational studies). Moreover, it included both randomised and non-randomised studies, making it the first systematic review and meta-analyses to do so. Meanwhile, Cui's meta-analysis [20] involved three studies that compared the newer second-generation drug eluting stent (DES) Everolimus with CABG. It was also among the most recently published meta-analyses, besides having the longest period of follow-up and the highest number of diabetic patients (n = 17532).

Unlike randomised controlled trials and observational trials, meta-analyses consistently show that CABG confers a lower risk of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization, albeit with a higher risk of stroke. We find two notable exceptions in Hakeem's [16] and Verma's [17] studies. In Hakeem's [16] study, the risk of myocardial infarction was similar in CABG and PTCA arms (10.3% versus 5.9%, RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.6, *p* = 0.23); however, the PTCA group displayed a trend towards higher risk of myocardial infarction. Hakeem et al. [16] attribute this phenomenon to the presence of VA CARDs trial which are responsible for the significant heterogeneity in the studies. It is noteworthy that, after excluding VA CARDs trial, MI risk attained statistical significance (RR 2.01, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.62, *p* < 0.0001) without residual heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, *p* = 0.83). Similarly, in Verma's study [17], the increase in risk of MI became significant (RR 0·57, 95% CI 0·41–0·78; *p* = 0·0004) after VA CARDs study was excluded from the analysis (I2 = 0%).

Conversely, Huang et al. [19] excluded VA CARDS trial in their sensitivity analyses; they reported the presence of VA CARDS trial (inclusion: 8.5% DES vs. 4.6% CABG, RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.20––2.37, *p* = 0.003; exclusion: 8.6% DES vs. 4.3% CABG, RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.43–2.57, *p* < 0.0001) did not alter the overall MI rate. Nonetheless, it is to be highlighted that Huang et al. [19] analysed a total of 14 randomised and non-randomised studies. This is in sharp contrast to Hakeem et al. [16] and Verma et al. [17] who only analysed four and eight randomised studies respectively in their meta-analyses.

### **5. Discussion**

The past decade has witnessed the increasing prevalence of diabetes, with more than a two-fold rise seen in both genders [2]. About 25–30% of patients admitted with ACS suffered from diabetes [1]. Unfortunately, compared with their non-diabetic counterparts, post-myocardial infarction complications and deaths are higher in diabetic patients after CABG or PCI [3–5]. Indeed, compared to the non-diabetic population, diabetic patients have been shown to sustain a higher composite end point of death, stroke and MI after CABG (HR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.04 to 2.31; *p* = 0.03) or PTCA (HR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.04 to 2.26; *p* = 0.03) in a report analysis of EXCEL trial [21]. Moreover, diabetic patients, in contrast to healthy individuals, suffered a higher rate of wound infection, neurological and renal complications, and a higher risk of stroke and readmission following CABG; this is besides the increased rates of target lesion revascularization and reinfarction after PTCA [5]. Additionally, diabetic patients are afflicted with a number of comorbidities at diagnosis, which further deteriorated their prognosis [22, 23].

Indications for revascularization therapy did not differ between diabetic and nondiabetic patients [1]. However, according to a nationwide study [4], diabetic patients tend to avoid myocardial revascularization procedures as they fear post-procedural complications and death. Furthermore, the higher frequency of proximal stenosis and extensive involvement in diabetic patients entails a higher procedural risk; this makes revascularization a less attractive treatment option for ACS [4, 24].

Nonetheless, revascularization does have some merits for diabetic patients. Several studies show that early revascularization could benefit diabetic patients by reducing

### *Is Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) Surgery Still Preferable to Percutaneous Coronary… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104993*

the risk of adverse events [4, 25]. It was demonstrated in a meta-analysis [26] consisting of eight trials that early invasive strategy could reduce mortality rate by 36% (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.45–0.99). Due to multivessel involvement and a higher risk of restenosis [5], CABG was likely the default treatment strategy for patients with diabetes in the past. Since Andreas Gruntzig introduced PTCA in 1977, notable advances have been made, which has significantly improved its success rate with a better safety profile [27]. The later introduction of drug-eluting stent (DES) drastically decreased the rate of restenosis of PTCA [27–30]. Despite these advances, whether PCI could replace CABG as an ideal treatment modality is yet to be determined.

The adverse outcomes of some treatments might not be obvious on a short-term follow-up. Additionally, the effects might alter in the long run. Long-term follow-up of patients is therefore essential. As an illustrative example, a study conducted by Pederson et al. [31] compared the cause of short-term and long-term mortality in patients treated with primary PTCA for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. While it was shown that cardiac mortality remained the main cause of death within the first month of PTCA, the origin of death began to shift towards non-cardiac causes beyond the first month. Furthermore, Onuma et al. [8] documented that late stent and very late stent thrombosis constitute around two-thirds of stent thrombosis. To the best of our knowledge, the longest-term follow-up with regards to the outcomes of CABG and PTCA is 40 years [32]. Nonetheless, studies that follow up patients for such a long duration are few and limited. The merits of CABG significantly outweigh PTCA after four years of revascularization (pooled Absolute risk reduction = 6%), as Hakeem et al. [16] have observed. Hence, in our study, we settled on a five-year follow-up duration as the cut-off point.

When comparing the clinical outcomes of treatments of a disorder, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard. Yet, patients recruited in RCTs are usually specifically selected while those with multiple comorbidities are excluded; this does not reflect real-world clinical practice. Ironically, observational studies (OS) – which involve a significant level of selection, publication and treatment bias – closely mirror daily clinical practice in the hospital setting. Huang et al. [19] found that patients from observational studies enjoyed a considerably higher mortality benefit with CABG compared to their counterparts from randomised trials (Observational trials 9.6% vs. Randomised trials 11.9%, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71–0.92, *p* = 0.001). We can, therefore, infer that in the real setting, CABG is the desired choice of revascularization for patients with high risk profiles. Hence, it is essential to take into account the findings of both RCT and OS as demonstrated in our study; this allows us to determine the overall treatment effect of CABG and PTCA both clinically and statistically.

*Studies* — With respect to LMSD and/or MVD in diabetic patients, some notable studies are worth mentioning. The first study to demonstrate the survival advantage of CABG over PTCA among diabetic patients is the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) [33]. A total of 353 diabetic patients were analysed at 5-year follow up, revealing a two-fold risk of mortality rate related to PTCA. As a result, CABG was recommended as the optimal revascularization method in patients with diabetes. Though it is historically noteworthy, this study was conducted before DES and antiplatelet agents were introduced. Consequently, it has limited application to current clinical settings [5, 12, 34].

BARI study was followed by several other studies on diabetes and MVD disease that includes EAST trial, CARBI trial, RITA trial, ARTS trial, SYNTAX trial and CARDia Trial [5, 12]. We shall not discuss EAST trial, CARBI trial and RITA trial since they were too flawed for any meaningful conclusions. On the one hand, ARTS trial [35] was the first randomised trial that compared the five-year outcomes of patients with MVD treated with CABG instead of BMS. On the other hand, the first prospective randomised trial that evaluated coronary revascularization in diabetic patients was the CARDia trial [34]. Meanwhile, SYNTAX trial [15] utilised SYNTAX score to measure the extent of coronary vessels occlusion. ARTS trial, SYNTAX trial and CARDia trial consistently reported similar mortality rate coupled with excess major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rate in the PTCA group; this called for repeat revascularization [6]. Regrettably, multiple recent studies [6, 17] have discredited these three trials as invalid on several grounds: the ARTS trial used historical control; the CARDia study was underpowered for primary composite outcome; and the SYNTAX trial involved a subgroup analysis of diabetic patients.

FREEDOM study [12] lasted from 2005 to 2010. It recruited a total of 1900 diabetic patients with MVD at 140 international centres; it was the largest prospective randomised trial. To evaluate any adverse outcomes, the patients were assigned to either CABG or PTCA with a follow-up period of between 2 to 6.75 years. This study recruited diabetic patients – high risk patients with a good distribution of SYNTAX scores coupled with optimal usage of medical therapy throughout followup. Consequently, it is regarded as the most outstanding trial to detect the safety and efficacy of revascularization therapies for diabetic patients with MVD. As a result, we included this study in most of the meta-analyses available. FREEDOM study is also the only study that we included in all the meta-analyses highlighted in our report. Indeed, FREEDOM Follow-On study [14] was published in 2019 with an extended median follow-up of 7.5 years to further evaluate the survival advantage of CABG over PTCA.

VA CARDS study is another study that was evaluated in numerous meta-analyses. Besides Luca's study [18], all the meta-analyses mentioned above analysed VACARDS study. VA CARDS study [16, 17, 36] aggressively searched for silent MIs that are assumed to be responsible for around one-third of the total MIs in diabetic patients. As such, following CABG, the risk of non-fatal MI was elevated drastically (CABG: 15% PCI:6.2%, HR: 3.32; 95% CI: 1.07 to 10.30). Nonetheless, we excluded this study since the follow-up duration did not meet our inclusion criteria.

BEST trial [13] compared Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with CABG in patients with diabetes and MVD. Indeed, it represents one of the few randomised trials to do so. EES was demonstrated to be the most efficacious stent in terms of safety and efficacy thanks to its association with the lowest risk of stent thrombosis and repeat revascularization [28, 30, 37]. While evaluating how diabetic patients with MVD fared with CABG and EES for, Bangalore et al. [38] reported that EES provided comparable survival benefit to CABG (425 [10.50%] versus 414 [10.23%] events; HR = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.96–1.30; *p* = 0.16) and a lower risk of stroke (118 [2.92%] versus 157 [3.88%] events; HR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58–0.99; *p* = 0.04). However, this was at the expense of a higher risk of myocardial infarction (260 [6.42%] versus 166 [4.10%] events; HR = 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32–2.04; *p* < 0.0001) and repeat revascularization (889 [21.96%] versus 421 [10.40%] events; HR = 2.42; 95% CI, 2.12–2.76; *p* < 0.0001) driven by incomplete revascularization at long term. Nevertheless, it was demonstrated in BEST trial that CABG still outperformed PTCA even with EES. Due to inconsistencies in the current evidence, well-designed studies are required in the future for a more meaningful conclusion.

In LMSD, comparable adverse outcomes as well as mortality were observed in both CABG and PTCA [7, 39]. Indeed, a case could be made that the above studies were underpowered; they did not utilise Everolimus, the newer second-generation

### *Is Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) Surgery Still Preferable to Percutaneous Coronary… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104993*

drug-eluting stent. Two of the largest randomised trials that included Everolimus are NOBEL trial [40] and EXCEL trial [41] but, unfortunately, they were not powered to study diabetic patients exclusively. A subgroup analysis of EXCEL trial [21] revealed no difference in the composite risk of all-cause mortality, stroke and myocardial infarction between CABG and PTCA in diabetic patients at 3 years (PTCA 20.7% vs. CABG 19.3%; HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.50; *p* = 0.87); however, the PTCA arm (*p* = 0.01) revealed a high risk of repeat revascularization. These results were consistent with our study findings. One exception is the higher all-cause mortality in the PTCA arm (*p* = 0.046) which included diabetic patients with high SYNTAX scores.

It should be highlighted that PCI as a substitute for CABG can only be indicated to selected LMSD patients. Patients with bifurcation lesions and unprotected LMSD yield better outcomes with CABG. Kappetein and Head [42] reported that CABG is the best treatment option for LMSD associated with bifurcation which incurs a higher risk of procedural complications, repeat revascularization and thrombosis. Yu's study [6] found similar adverse effects and mortality in both PTCA and CABG arms of unprotected LMSD patients. Nonetheless, as an unprotected left main stem occlusion is highly associated with MVD, CABG is a more reasonable revascularization modality in this patient population [42].

For MVD, in terms of adverse outcomes and mortality, a large variation has been observed in the individual studies compared to the pooled analyses or meta-analyses. This phenomenon is alluded to various study designs, types of stents or grafting and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Hence, results from individual studies should be interpreted cautiously.

To summarise, long-term survival in MVD favours CABG. In their comprehensive meta-analysis of 14 randomised trials, Herbison and Wong [43] concluded that despite significant improvement of CABG and PTCA over the past 30 years, CABG, regardless of the types of stents used, still constantly outperformed PTCA by 30% difference in survival benefit particularly in diabetic patients. In another pooled analysis [44] of 10 randomised trials involving CABG and PTCA for diabetic patients with MVD, a significantly lower five-year mortality rate was observed in the CABG arm (12.3% versus 20.0%, HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87, *p* = 0.014).

Regarding adverse outcomes at long-term, it can be concluded from the above studies that, overall, CABG confer more benefits than PCI thanks to its ability to achieve complete revascularization and its lower rate of restenosis [45]. In Contini's study [9], 85.6% of CABG as compared to only 51.3% of PTCA patients could undergo complete revascularization. Similarly, Farooq et al. [46] reported that in their study, angiographic complete revascularization was only achieved in 52.8% of PTCA as opposed to 66.9% of CABG patients. Worse, the presence of diabetes further complicates the burden of incomplete revascularization. Verma and Aronson et al. [17, 21] found that diabetic population tends to present with more progressive and diffuse coronary disease. In addition, they discovered that new lesions can also form easily in the revascularization sites as diabetes progresses.

Insofar as restenosis rate is concerned, target vessel revascularization remains an unwanted effect of PCI. Multivessel angioplasty carries a higher risk of restenosis at multiple independent sites while potentially worsening the overall treatment outcomes [5]. To complicate matters, the incidence of stent thrombosis is elevated significantly with the presence of diabetes and coronary artery disease, which markedly decreases the benefit of PCI in diabetic patients [11, 21]. Although it is a more invasive procedure [18], Aronson et al. [21] noted that CABG necessitates less reintervention among both diabetic and MVD patients.

Despite its benefits, CABG carries a higher risk of stroke since antiplatelet agents are rarely used after CABG, and CABG itself is usually performed on-pump [20]. Noteworthy, in FREEDOM, 30 days after revascularization, aspirin was used 99.1% in PTCA versus 88.4% in CABG while thienopyridine was used only 98.4% and 24.6% for PTCA and CABG respectively [12, 17]. Abnormal platelets coupled with an enhanced platelet activity were observed in diabetic patients; this phenomenon leads to enhanced adhesion, activation and aggregation [47, 48]. Antiplatelet agents could therefore play a vital role in reducing the risk of thrombosis in the diabetic population. This theory is not baseless; a previous study suggested that for diabetes population afflicted with coronary artery disease, twice-daily aspirin regimen in lieu of once daily regimen could be more efficacious in hindering platelet production and platelet aggregation [49]. Given the lower frequency of antiplatelet use post CABG, a higher risk of stroke is therefore to be expected.

The utilisation of aortic manipulation in on-pump CABG is also associated with a higher risk of stroke. Aortic manipulation, it is postulated, causes atherosclerotic debris to occlude the blood vessels in the brain, with stroke as the end result. Moreover, prophylactic anti-platelet therapy might reduce the risk of stroke if provided weeks before CABG with aortic manipulation and on-pump CABG. Nonetheless, whether off-pump CABG could decrease the incidence of stroke remains debatable. On the one hand, a lower occurrence of stroke with off-pump CABG than on-pump CABG (adjusted odds ratio: 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98, *p* < 0.001) was observed in a retrospective analysis [50] of 30,426 patients undergoing CABG surgery in 2006 and 2007. On the other hand, comparable incidence of stroke with on-pump and off-pump CABG at 5-year follow-up (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.10; *p* = 0.16; 2.2% vs. 2.8%) [51] was reported in a recent meta-analysis of 8145 patients in six studies. After evaluating the adverse outcomes of sirolimus eluting stent versus off-pump CABG in a non-randomised trial of 207 diabetic patients with MVD, Yamagata et al. [52] observed a significantly higher rate of cerebrovascular events following off-pump CABG (*p* = 0.035) at 3 years. Based on this finding, it can be inferred that although the risk of stroke may decline with off-pump CABG, there was no significant change in the outcomes when compared with PTCA, if other factors remain unchanged. This hypothesis can only be validated by future welldesigned studies.

*Effect of SYNTAX score* – SYNTAX score grades the complexity of coronary vessels in patients with CAD in order to determine the feasibility of CABG or PTCA [53]. Diabetes can increase the complexity of coronary lesions [54]. SYNTAX trial [15] revealed that revascularization benefits did not differ in patients with lowintermediate SYNTAX score. Conversely, among patients with intermediate-high SYNTAX score, the PTCA cohort with increasing SYNTAX score displayed increasing adverse events. Interestingly, this effect was more prominent in diabetic compared to non-diabetic individuals. We can therefore conclude that in diabetic patients, when the SYNTAX score is low, PCI can be recommended; however, when the SYNTAX score is high, CABG should be the default revascularization modality [1, 55]. This rule of thumb applies to both LMSD occlusion and MVD. Indeed, at high SYNTAX scores, a significant mortality difference was observed between CABG and PTCA in a subgroup analysis of EXCEL Trial [21] involving 554 diabetes patients. Although the EXCEL trial was underpowered for assessing mortality in diabetic patients, the trend towards improved survival could not be overlooked. Accordingly, in clinical decision making for patients with LMSD and MVD [1], the use of SYNTAX score is considered paramount. On a side note, VA CARDs trial [3] did not identify the effect of SYNTAX

*Is Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) Surgery Still Preferable to Percutaneous Coronary… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104993*

score on the revascularization outcomes. Admittedly, that study was underpowered with a limited number of participants and follow-up duration.

*Confounding factors* – We need to consider several factors when determining the long-term adverse outcomes of CABG and PCI. Glycaemic control plays a pivotal role in altering the treatment outcomes of revascularization therapy. Of all parameters, the HbA1c value is of the utmost importance [56, 57]. Interestingly, HbA1c level has been found to be associated with spontaneous platelet aggregation, reflecting underlying hypercoagulable status in diabetes [58]. Harskamp and Park [59] noted that in a study conducted by Corpus et al. [60], when the HbA1c was above 7, the rate of target vessel revascularization after PTCA was enhanced significantly (34% vs. 15%, *p* = 0.02). Moreover, a meta-analysis [61]of 16 studies also suggested that in diabetic patients receiving PTCA with a risk ratio of 1.18 (95% CI 1.10–1.27, *p* = 0.016; I2 = 45.8%), high HbA1c at baseline can independently increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Similarly, it was revealed in an observational study [53] that the incidence of MACCE was significantly lower when HbA1c is below 7 (27.5% versus 37.4%; HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52–0.97; *p* = 0.03) which is accompanied by significant reduction of repeat revascularization (19.9% versus 29.5%; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47–0.93; *p* = 0.02). It was found that this benefit was maximised when the residual SYNTAX score was above four.

Interestingly, potential determinants of mortality of PCI include psychological factors as well. A recent study [62] with a 12-year follow-up revealed that patients with higher feelings of being disabled one month after PCI had a significantly higher mortality rate (43.5% vs. 23.1%; HR = 2.53, 95% CI = 1.30–4.90, *p* = 0.001). Due to the paucity of reliable data, future robust studies are required to determine the relationship between psychological states and PCI mortality.

It is known that diabetes can lead to a thrombotic state via various mechanisms [63]. Antiplatelet agents are crucial in minimising the risks of hypercoagulability. For several decades, aspirin and clopidogrel have been used as the standard antiplatelet regimens. However, newer antiplatelet agents (such as Ticagrelor and Prasugrel) appear to generate more favourable outcomes than the older medications, especially in diabetic patients [64, 65]. A meta-analysis [66] of seven randomised controlled trials involving 58,591 patients with ACS revealed that patients with Ticagrelor or Prasugrel had a significant decline in mortality (2.9% vs. 3.4%, OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.79–0.95, *p* = 0.002), recurrent myocardial infarction (4.2% vs. 5.2%, OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.74–0.87, *p* < 0.0001) and definite in-stent thrombosis (0.9% vs. 1.7%, OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.43–0.63, *p* < 0.0001) without an elevation of major bleeding complications (5% vs. 4.7%, OR = 1.06 95% CI 0.96–1.17, *p* = 0.25). These findings corroborate the OPTIMUS trial [59] that demonstrated a greater inhibition of platelet activity by Prasugrel than Clopidogrel (89.3 vs. 27.7%, *p* = 0.0001). Nonetheless, the clinical efficacy and safety of Ticagrelor and Prasugrel post revascularization therapy is yet to be proven to date. Hence, well-designed studies looking at this aspect are warranted.

### **6. Limitations**

Despite our best effort to include similar studies and exclude studies which present significant heterogeneity from other studies, a number of variables still exist between the studies as a result of various inclusion and exclusion criteria and study designs. We also admit that definition of adverse outcomes, follow-up duration and

types of grafting which differ from one study to another can potentially affect the treatment outcomes. In addition, the aforementioned studies did not capture factors such as HbA1c level, SYNTAX score, treatment of diabetes and psychological factors. Moreover, only a limited number of studies were analysed since we excluded studies that are not published in English. Furthermore, since only a limited number of studies utilised EES, the results should be interpreted with caution when applied to the clinical setting where EES is widely performed. Robust studies utilising EES are warranted in the future. Lastly, several observational studies were recruited in our study where they posed inherent bias; nonetheless, it is unlikely that the results would differ considerably after exclusion of the observational trials.

### **7. Future directions**

The coronary vessels of diabetic patients are lined with the more extensive and severe atherosclerotic plaque. This has given rise to hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) [67]. HCR combines the essence of CABG and PCI to mitigate issues related to MVD [68]. In HCR, CABG is performed in the left anterior descending artery while PCI is utilised to open up the other occluded vessels [69, 70]. A robotic procedure is used for this minimally invasive CABG procedure where only small incisions rather than a midline incision are required. In this best-of-both-worlds strategy, a minimally-invasive off-pump left internal mammary graft is connected to the blocked left anterior descending artery, and a stent is then placed from the left main to the left circumflex artery.

HCR is safer and more effective than CABG or PCI. By avoiding sternotomy, cardiopulmonary bypass and most importantly, aortic manipulation, HCR is associated with a lower infection, transfusion and prolonged recovery rate and risk of stroke [62, 64, 71, 72]. Since diabetic patients are prone to more frequent infections with a slower healing rate, HCR would benefit them enormously.

HCR had a similar all-cause mortality (6.4% for HCR vs.9.2% for CABG; *p* = 0.69), myocardial infarction (4.3% vs. 7.2%; *p* = 0.30) and repeat revascularization (37.2% vs. 45.4%; *p* = 0.38), stroke (2.1% vs. 4.1%; *p* = 0.35) and MACCE s (45.2% vs. 53.4%; *p* = 0.39) in a randomised study [62] of 191 patients with MVD at five years. However, a trend towards better outcomes favours HCR instead of the conventional CABG. In a prospective study [61] at Fuwai Hospital in Japan, 120 diabetic patients were enrolled in the HCR arm and 240 patients in the off-pump CABG arm. A follow-up of MACCE events after three years reported a lower rate of stroke in the CABG arm (0% vs. 3.6% at 3 years; *p* = 0.046).

We anticipate that HCR will be widely used in the near future [73]. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to guide the application of the procedures to diabetic patients [66, 67, 74]. Hence, future robust studies on long-term follow up are needed.

### **8. Conclusion**

As an option in diabetic patients, revascularization is dictated by the complexity and nature of the coronary vessels involved. A low SYNTAX score favours PCI as an alternative to CABG. However, CABG is recommended at an intermediate-high SYNTAX score. Meanwhile, in multivessel involvement or complex CAD, CABG remains the mainstay of treatment. In left main stem occlusion, when the disease is

### *Is Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) Surgery Still Preferable to Percutaneous Coronary… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104993*

accompanied by bifurcation or is classified as unprotected left main stem disease, CABG could offer better treatment outcomes. Factors such as patient's quality of life and cost effectiveness of therapy, coupled with other clinical factors and short-term clinical outcomes, should not be ignored in clinical decision making; these should be communicated clearly and effectively to patients in order to have their informed consent. The implementation of shared decision making is vital when formulating the best revascularization option; patients' preferences, values and needs are to be respected and honoured.

### **Acknowledgements**

The author would like to express his gratitude to Cheang Jia Min, Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia for research assistance, and Nageeb Gounjaria, Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia for proofreading and editing the manuscript.

### **Author details**

Ahmad Farouk Musa1,2

1 Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

2 Victorian Heart Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

\*Address all correspondence to: farouk@monash.edu

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Neumann F-J, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/ EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. European Heart Journal. 2019;**40**(2):87-165

[2] Zhou B, Lu Y, Hajifathalian K, Bentham J, et al. Worldwide trends in diabetes since 1980: A pooled analysis of 751 population-based studies with 4· 4 million participants. The Lancet. 2016;**387**(10027):1513-1530

[3] King SB, Marshall JJ, Tummala PE. Revascularization for coronary artery disease: Stents versus bypass surgery. Annual Review of Medicine. 2010;**61**(1):199-213

[4] Gustafsson I, Hvelplund A, Hansen KW, et al. Underuse of an invasive strategy for patients with diabetes with acute coronary syndrome: A nationwide study. Open Heart. 2015;(1):e000165

[5] Singh M, Arora R, Kodumuri V, Khosla S, Jawad E. Coronary revascularization in diabetic patients: Current state of evidence. Experimental & Clinical Cardiology. 2011;**16**(1):16-22

[6] Yu X, He J, Luo Y, et al. Influence of diabetes mellitus on long-term outcomes of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease treated with either drug-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass grafting. International Heart Journal. 2015;**56**(1):43-48

[7] Lee K, Ahn JM, Yoon Y-H, et al. Long-yerm (10-Year) outcomes of stenting or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2020;**9**(8):e015372

[8] Onuma Y, Wykrzykowska JJ, Garg S, Vranckx P, Serruys PW. 5-year follow-up of coronary revascularization in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2011;**4**(3):317-323

[9] Contini GA, Nicolini F, Fortuna D, et al. Five-year outcomes of surgical or percutaneous myocardial revascularization in diabetic patients. International Journal of Cardiology. 2013;**168**(2):1028-1033

[10] Kim YG, Park DW, Lee WS, et al. Influence of diabetes mellitus on long-term (five-year) outcomes of drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary revascularization. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2012;**109**(11):1548-1557

[11] Moshkovitz Y, Mohr R, Medalion B, Hyam E, Herz I, Deitch I, et al. Drugeluting stents compared with bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts for diabetic patients. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2012;**94**(5):1455-1462

[12] Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2012;**367**(25):2375

[13] Park SJ, Ahn JM, Kim YH, et al. Trial of everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for coronary disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;**372**(13):1204-1212

[14] Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Dangas GD, et al. Long-term survival following multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2019;**73**(6):629-638

*Is Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) Surgery Still Preferable to Percutaneous Coronary… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104993*

[15] Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Morice M-C, et al. Treatment of complex coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes: 5-year results comparing outcomes of bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in the SYNTAX trial †. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2013;**43**(5):1006-1013

[16] Hakeem A, Garg N, Bhatti S, Rajpurohit N, Ahmed Z, Uretsky BF. Effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents compared with bypass surgery in diabetics with multivessel coronary disease: Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical data. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2013;**2**(4):e000354

[17] Verma S, Farkouh ME, Yanagawa B, et al. Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2013;**1**(4):317-328

[18] De Luca G, Schaffer A, Verdoia M, Suryapranata H. Meta-analysis of 14 trials comparing bypass grafting vs. drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases. 2014;**24**(4):344-354

[19] Huang F, Lai W, Chan C, et al. Comparison of bypass surgery and drugeluting stenting in diabetic patients with left main and/or multivessel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and nonrandomized studies. Cardiology Journal. 2015;**22**(2):123-134

[20] Cui K, Lyu S, Song X, et al. Drugeluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting for diabetic patients with multivessel and/or left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis. Angiology. 2019;**70**(8):765-773

[21] Milojevic M, Serruys PW, Sabik JF, et al. Bypass surgery or stenting for left main coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2019;**73**(13):1616-1628

[22] Foussas SG. Acute coronary syndromes and diabetes mellitus. Hellenic Journal of Cardiology. 2016;**57**(5):375-377

[23] Giraldez RR, Clare RM, Lopes RD, et al. Prevalence and clinical outcomes of undiagnosed diabetes mellitus and prediabetes among patients with highrisk non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. American Heart Journal. 2013;**165**(6):918-925

[24] Zand Parsa AF, Ziai H, Haghighi L. The impact of cardiovascular risk factors on the site and extent of coronary artery disease. Cardiovascular Journal of Africa. 2012;**23**(4):197-199

[25] O'Donoghue ML, Vaidya A, Afsal R, et al. An invasive or conservative strategy in patients with diabetes mellitus and non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2012;**60**(2):106-111

[26] Jobs A, Mehta SR, Montalescot G, et al. Optimal timing of an invasive strategy in patients with non-STelevation acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomised trials. The Lancet. 2017;**390**(10096):737-746

[27] Sheth SD, Giugliano RP. Coronary artery stents: Advances in technology. Hospital Practice. 2014;**42**(4):83-91

[28] Iqbal J, Gunn J, Serruys PW. Coronary stents: Historical development, current status and future directions. British Medical Bulletin. 2013;**106**(1):193-211

[29] Alfonso C, Cohen M. Transradial artery catheterization in the United States. Cardiac Interventions Today. 2014:29-34

[30] Katz G, Harchandani B, Shah B. Drug-eluting stents: The past, present, and future. Current Atherosclerosis Reports. 2015;**17**(3):11

[31] Pedersen F, Butrymovich V, Kelbæk H, et al. Short-and long-term cause of death in patients treated with primary PCI for STEMI. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2014;**64**(20):2101-2108

[32] Milojevic M, Thuijs DJ, Head SJ, et al. Life-long clinical outcome after the first myocardial revascularization procedures: 40-year follow-up after coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in Rotterdam. Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic surgery. 2019;**28**(6):852-859

[33] Alderman E, Andrews K, Bost J, Bourassa M. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1996;**335**(4):217-225

[34] Kapur A, Hall RJ, Malik IS, et al. Randomised comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2010;**55**(5):432-440

[35] Serruys PW, Ong ATL, van Herwerden LA, et al. Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2005;**46**(4):575-581

[36] Kamalesh M, Sharp TG, Tang XC, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass surgery in United States Veterans with diabetes. Journal

of the American College of Cardiology. 2013;**61**(8):808-816

[37] Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, et al. Outcomes with various drug eluting or bare metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus: Mixed treatment comparison analysis of 22 844 patient years of follow-up from randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;**345**:e5170

[38] Bangalore LS, Guo LY, Samadashvili LZ, Blecker LS, Xu LJ, Hannan LE. Everolimus eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel disease. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2015;**8**(7):e002626

[39] Park S-J, Park D-W. Diabetes in myocardial revascularization for left main coronary artery disease: Predictor or decision maker? Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2019;**73**(13):1629-1632

[40] Holm NR, Mäkikallio T, Lindsay MM, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: Updated 5-year outcomes from the randomised, noninferiority NOBLE trial. The Lancet. 2020;**395**(10219):191-199

[41] Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW, et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016;**375**(23):2223-2235

[42] Kappetein AP, Head S. CABG, stents, or hybrid procedures for left main disease? Eurointervention. Journal of Europcr in Collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2015;**11**:V111-V114

*Is Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) Surgery Still Preferable to Percutaneous Coronary… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104993*

[43] Herbison P, Wong C-K. Has the difference in mortality between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting in people with heart disease and diabetes changed over the years? A systematic review and meta-regression. BMJ Open. 2015;**5**(12):e010055

[44] Hlatky MA, Boothroyd DB, Bravata DM, Boersma E, Booth J, Brooks MM, et al. Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: A collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. The Lancet. 2009;**373**(9670):1190-1197

[45] Aronson D, Edelman ER. Coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus. Cardiology Clinics. 2014;**32**(3):439-455

[46] Farooq V, Serruys PW, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. The negative impact of incomplete angiographic revascularization on clinical outcomes and its association with total occlusions. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013;**61**(3):282-294

[47] Ferreiro JL, Angiolillo DJ. Diabetes and antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome. Circulation. 2011;**123**(7):798-813

[48] Kaur R, Kaur M, Singh J. Endothelial dysfunction and platelet hyperactivity in type 2 diabetes mellitus: Molecular insights and therapeutic strategies. Cardiovascular Diabetology. 2018;**17**(1)

[49] Capodanno D, Patel A, Dharmashankar K, et al. Pharmacodynamic effects of different aspirin dosing regimens in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with coronary artery disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011;**57**(14):E1910 [50] Li Z, Denton T, Yeo KK, et al. Offpump bypass surgery and postoperative stroke: California Coronary Bypass Outcomes Reporting Program. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2010;**90**(3):753-759

[51] Smart NA, Dieberg G, King N. Longterm outcomes of on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2018;**71**(9):983-991

[52] Yamagata KI, Kataoka Y, Kokubu N, et al. A 3-year clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention using sirolimus-eluting stent and offpump coronary artery bypass grafting for the treatment of diabetic patients with multivessel disease. Circulation Journal: Official Journal of the Japanese Circulation Society. 2010;**74**(4):671-678

[53] Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP, et al. The SYNTAX Score: An angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention. 2005;**1**(2):219-227

[54] Tanaka T, Seto S, Yamamoto K, Kondo M, Otomo T. An assessment of risk factors for the complexity of coronary artery disease using the SYNTAX score. Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics. 2013;**28**(1):16-21

[55] Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, et al. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: A pooled analysis of individual patient data. The Lancet. 2018;**391**(10124):939-948

[56] Wang TKM, Woodhead A, Ramanathan T, Pemberton J. Relationship between diabetic variables and outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients. Heart, Lung and Circulation. 2017;**26**(4):371-375

[57] Musa A, Cheong XP, Yap C, Dillon J, Nordin R. Does diabetes mellitus increase the mortality risk in coronary artery disease patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery at the National Heart Institute of Kuala Lumpur? Journal of Diabetes, Metabolic Disorders & Control. 2018;**5**:141-143

[58] Hwang KJ, Lee HS, Song BY, et al. Glycemic control status after percutaneous coronary intervention and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2017;**10**(4):e004157-e

[59] Harskamp RE, Park DW. Percutaneous coronary intervention in diabetic patients: Should choice of stents be influenced? Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy. 2013;**11**(5):541-553

[60] Corpus RA, George PB, House JA, et al. Optimal glycemic control is associated with a lower rate of target vessel revascularization in treated type II diabetic patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2004;**43**(1):8-14

[61] Xu X, Wang R, Wang Y, Cai S. Glycosylated haemoglobin levels and clinical outcomes in diabetic patients receiving percutaneous coronary interventions: A meta-analysis of cohort studies. International Journal of Cardiology. 2015;**190**(1):143-147

[62] Bergmann MJ, Utens EMWJ, de Jager TAJ, et al. Feelings of being disabled as a prognostic factor for mortality in men and women post-PCI up to 12 years. International Journal of Cardiology. 2017;**249**:107-111

[63] Pomero F, Minno M, Fenoglio L, et al. Is diabetes a hypercoagulable state? A critical appraisal. Acta Diabetologica. 2015;**52**(6):1007-1016

[64] Alexopoulos D, Xanthopoulou I, Mavronasiou E, et al. Randomised assessment of ticagrelor versus prasugrel antiplatelet effects in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013;**36**(8):2211-2216

[65] Angiolillo DJ, Badimon JJ, Saucedo JF, et al. A pharmacodynamic comparison of prasugrel vs. high-dose clopidogrel in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease: Results of the Optimising anti-Platelet Therapy In diabetes MellitUS (OPTIMUS)-3 Trial. European Heart Journal. 2011;**32**(7):838-846

[66] Navarese EP, Verdoia M, Schaffer A, et al. Ischaemic and bleeding complications with new, compared to standard, ADP-antagonist regimens in acute coronary syndromes: A metaanalysis of randomised trials. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine. 2011;**104**(7):561-569

[67] Song Z, Shen L, Zheng Z, et al. Onestop hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass in patients with diabetes mellitus. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2016;**151**(6):1695-1701

[68] Tajstra M, Hrapkowicz T, Hawranek M, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization in selected patients with multivessel disease. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2018;**11**(9):847-852

[69] Hage A, Giambruno V, Jones P, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: Comparative effectiveness analysis with long-term follow-up. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2019;**8**(24):e014204

*Is Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) Surgery Still Preferable to Percutaneous Coronary… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104993*

[70] Kayatta MO, Halkos ME, Puskas JD. Hybrid coronary revascularization for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2018;**7**(4):500-505

[71] Harskamp RE, Brennan JM, Xian Y, et al. Practice patterns and clinical outcomes after hybrid coronary revascularization in the United States: An analysis from the society of thoracic surgeons adult cardiac database. Circulation. 2014;**130**(11):872-879

[72] Harskamp RE, Walker PF, Alexander JH, et al. Clinical outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with diabetes mellitus. American Heart Journal. 2014;**168**(4):471-478

[73] Saha T, Naqvi SY, Goldberg S. Hybrid revascularization: A review. Cardiology. 2018;**140**(1):35-44

[74] Repossini A, Tespili M, Saino A, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization in 100 patients with multivessel coronary disease. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2014;**98**(2):574-581

### **Chapter 8**

## Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Current Updates on CABG versus PCI

*Sridhar Kasturi*

### **Abstract**

Most patients of LMCA disease are symptomatic and at high risk of cardiovascular (CV) events, since occlusion compromises flow, and it is associated with >20% mortality at 1 year. Coronary artery by-pass graft (CABG) is the main mode of revascularization procedure for significant left-main coronary artery (LMCA) disease unless contraindicated or unsuitable for surgery, and in patients with complex coronary anatomy. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of left-main (LM) is emerging as an alternative to CABG especially in patients with low syntax score with suitable coronary anatomy for PCI, and life-saving emergency situations like acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with hemodynamically unstable, and high risk group patients who are unsuitable coronary anatomy for grafting or due to associated co-morbidities.

**Keywords:** CABG, PCI, LMCA, clinical trails, syntax score, current updates

### **1. Introduction**

LMCA arises from the left coronary sinus in majority of patients, most often divides into two major branches; 1) Left anterior descending (LAD) is the larger vessel in majority of patients, supplies anterior aspect of left ventricle and anterior portion of septum. 2) left circumflex (LCX) supplies left lateral and posterior aspect of left ventricle (LV). In some patients, it trifurcates into LAD, LCX and Ramus branches, and in 1% of the population, may present like atretic segment or both branches may arise directly from the aorta via separate ostia [1]. LMCA has an average length of 10.8 5.2 mm (range 2–23 mm), an average diameter of 4.9 0.8, and supplies more than 75% of the blood supply to the LV in a right dominant system and almost 100% supply to the LV in a left dominant system [2].

LM has higher elastic component that may lead to stent under expansion & recoiling which necessitates use of stents with sufficient radial strength. LM disease more often associated with hard fibro- calcific plaques with tapering of the vessel [3]. Conventionally, an angiographic cut off of >50% diameter stenosis (equivalent to >75% area stenosis) has been used to indicate hemodynamic significance, as suggested

**Figure 1.** *Type of lesions involving left main.*

by early work in an animal model by Gould that demonstrated a reduction in hyperaemic flow. Significant LMCA disease defined as >50% narrowing is found in 4 to 6% of patients who undergo coronary angiography, and it involves ostium in 15%, mid segment in 20%, ostium to Proximal shaft in 15%, and LM bifurcation lesions in 50% of patients. **Figure 1** across lesions beyond 50% degree of stenosis of LM [4].

Clinical Presentation: LM disease most often presents with ACS in >63%, and stable ischemic heart disease in 37% of cases, and sometimes with life threatening arrhythmias and sudden death. Ostial stenosis is more often seen in women (44 vs. 20%) compared to men [5]. Oveido et al. demonstrated that LM lesion extending into the proximal LAD, LCX or both may be seen in 90%, 60.4% and 62% of patients, respectively, whereas isolated ostia of LAD & LCx lesions without extending to LM were seen in 9.3% and 17.1% of patients, respectively [6].

### **1.1 Etiology**

Atherosclerosis is the most common cause of LMCA disease, and other causes of LMCA disease are rare. Diseases involving ascending aorta may also cause LMCA obstruction such as aortic dissection, aortic aneurysm, Takayasu arteritis, systemic vascular disorders, thromboembolism to LM, and sometimes it might be due to iatrogenic causes like trans-catheter valve implants in a lower coronary origin or shallow sinuses of Valsalva, and iatrogenic catheter induced traumatic dissection or spasm of LM [1].

### **2. Replace this text with your section heading**

### **2.1 Non-invasive predictors of LMCA disease**

Myocardial perfusion scan indicative of significant LM disease is presence of multiple large perfusion defects in the LAD and LCX territories mainly associated with exercise induced transient ischemic dilation (TID) of left ventricle, and increased lung uptake of tracer. Probability of LM disease more likely in the presence of stressinduced sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia or non-sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia >30 seconds or ST-segment elevation, exercise LV ejection fraction ≤35%, and appearance of new regional wall motion abnormality (RWMA) involving >2 segments at a low-dose dobutamine stress test (≤10 mg/kg per minute), inducible ischemia at a low heart rate (<120 beats per minute) or at low level of exercise test, and exercise induced fall in systolic BP [7].

### **2.2 Assessment of LM with Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)**

Multi-slice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) is accurate in identifying LM lesions with >50% narrowing with a sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 86% compared with angiography, and CMRI detection of coronary lesions in heavily calcified coronary segments is more reliable than by cardiac CT. Overall, the accuracy of MSCT for detection of angiographic in-stent restenosis (ISR) of LM was 93% with 100% sensitivity, 91% specificity, and 100% negative predictive values [8]. The DISCOVER FLOW trial demonstrated that Fractional flow reserve (FFR) CT could dramatically improve the diagnostic accuracy of CT imaging without the need for invasive FFR imaging [9].

### **2.3 Angiographic assessment of LMCA**

Coronary angiography remains the gold standard diagnostic technique for the diagnosis of clinically important LMCA disease. Angiography is poor in assessing characterization of tissue or plaque (except for calcium, aneurysms, coarse ulcerations, or large dissections) and features associated with suboptimal stent deployment. In order to avoid precipitating myocardial ischemia in patients with severe LMCA disease perform angiography with careful manipulations of catheters, limited angiographic images with minimal contrast dose to avoid procedure related sudden events. Sometimes, Ostial LMCA stenosis is very difficult to make out on angiography and it should be suspected if there is any pressure damp and absence of reflex of dye in to the coronary sinus. Disease involving entire LMCA may be underestimated due to lack of reference segment, and in such cases indirect assessment of LMCA diameter and size can be estimated by using Finet's and Murray's law using main branch (MB) and side branch (SB) diameters [10, 11]. Angio is also poor at assessing lesion calcification due to its low sensitivity in detecting calcium (45–50%), and this may lead to underestimation of calcium contributing to procedure delay, failure of PCI due to absence of plaque modification resulting in under expansion, dissection, failure to cross lesions with balloons and stents, and dislodgement of stents. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and Optical coherence tomography (OCT) have better sensitivity 80% vs. 50% in detecting calcium compared to angiography.

### **2.4 Usefulness of IVI and Functional testing to assess LM disease**

Angiographic assessment of borderline LM lesions (30–70%) is inaccurate with significant inter-observer variability whereas the reproducibility and accuracy of the angiographic evaluation of LM lesions <30% and ≥ 70% is excellent Thus, revascularization strategies of borderline lesions based solely on the angiography may lead to incorrect revascularization strategies due to improper assessment of LMCA severity which might adversely affects clinical outcomes because of low graft patency rates and up to a 6-fold higher rate of atherosclerotic disease progression of bypassed native coronary vessels [12]. Intravascular imaging is helpful in assessing severity and to decide revascularization strategies particularly in patients with angiography showing doubtful, inaccurate, ambiguous lesions, intermediate lesions without any noninvasive evaluation of inducible ischemia or and whenever no correlation between angiography lesion severity and clinical symptoms. OCT is not considered as ideal imaging option for ostio-proximal LM lesions and might be limited in case of large vessel (>5.5 mm diameter) but the technique superior to IVUS in identification of thrombus, stent under expansion, struts mal apposition and edge dissection thrombus, due to its better spatial resolution. Lesions involving mid and distal LM can be adequately visualized by OCT imaging modality with high resolution images and comparable results with IVUS. OCT can reveal more detail, whereas IVUS provides more insight in deeper layers of the coronary arteries. The expert consensus group stated that IVUS and OCT are equivalent and both superior to coronary angiogram (CAG) guidance [13]. However, an extensive Random clinical trial (RCT) that addresses superiority of OCT guidance is currently still lacking.

Based on the findings of LITRO study, patients with intermediate LM stenosis between 25% and 60% lesions with minimal luminal area (MLA) of ≥6 mm<sup>2</sup> revascularization of LM (**Figure 2**) can be safely deferred with favorable outcomes at 2 years


**Figure 2.** *Mean luminal area of LMCA by IVUS from various studies.* *Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Current Updates on CABG versus PCI DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104755*

of follow-up (cardiac death-free survival of 97.7%). Nearly 30% of patients with mild disease of LMCA with less than 30% narrowing had an MLA of <6 mm2 , whereas 43% of patients with angiographic LM stenosis ≥50% had a prognostically favorable MLA of ≥6 mm<sup>2</sup> [14].

S J Park group suggested the MLA cut-off for FFR < 0.80 was 4.5 mm2 for south Asians with a sensitivity of 77% and a negative predictive value of 75% [15]. Based on results of DEFINE-FLAIR and iFR-SWEDEHEART studies cut off value of instantaneous wave free ratio (iFR) for deferring revascularization of lesions is >0.89. However, if the FFR is between 0.81 and 0.85, then the hemodynamic significance of the LM lesion cannot be accurately determined if the combined FFR of the LM and the downstream disease is ≤0.45. In such situations, IVUS or OCT imaging assessment of mean luminal areas will be helpful to decide whether revascularization is required or not, IVUS MLA < 4.5MM2 needs revascularization, and IVUS MLA is between 4.5mm2 and 6mm2 requires FFR assessment after treating downstream vessel to decide revascularization of LM is required or not based on FFR value. > 0.80 or < 0.80, and revascularization should be avoided if IVUS measured LM MLA > 6 mm2 [16].

### **2.5 Early experience of PCI**

Most patients of LMCA disease are symptomatic and at high risk of CV events, since occlusion compromises flow to at least 75% of the LV, and it is associated >20% mortality at 1 year. Presently four management strategies recommended for LMCA disease: medical therapy, PCI, or surgical revascularization (CABG) either off pump or on-pump, and hybrid (CABG + PCI) procedures. For all practical purposes, CABG is the main mode of revascularization procedure for significant LMCA disease unless contraindicated or unsuitable for surgery due to better long term results particularly in diabetics, and in patients with complex coronary anatomy, and it was based on superior results observed in 3 randomized trials conducted in 70's and 80's - VA study [17], ECSS study [18], and CASS study [19]. CABG improved survival and symptoms mainly in patients with triple Vessel Disease and LMCA disease associated with severe LV dysfunction, and positive exercise induced ischemia. 150 patients of Left Main Disease in VA and EU RCT study showed 5 years Mortality was 36.5% v/s 16% in Medical treated v/s CABG group. CASS registry consisting of 1484 patients showed significantly improved survival rate at the end of 10 years and 15 years follow up in CABG treated patients v/s Medically treated patients [20]. Until recently CABG was the only option considered for significant LMCA disease and PCI was regarded as a harmful procedure with poor acute and long term results. However, PCI of LM is emerging as an alternative to CABG especially in patients with low syntax score with suitable coronary anatomy for PCI, and life-saving emergency situations like ACS with hemodynamically unstable, and high risk group patients who are unsuitable coronary anatomy for grafting or due to associated co-morbidities.

Andreas Gruntzig was the 1st person to perform first plain balloon angioplasty of LMCA in 1976. Later, O'Keefe et al. reported 127 angioplasty procedures of LMCA lesions with a procedural mortality of 9.1% and 3-year survival rate of 36% [21]. The beginning era of LM interventional management with plain balloon angioplasty was associated with a high mortality and morbidity due to abrupt vessel closure and acute stent thrombosis. Subsequently, Era of Bare-metal stents showed high restenosis and repeat revascularization rates with an increased incidence of sudden cardiac deaths.

In 1994 a meta-analysis of 7 studies that randomized a total of 2649 patients to medical therapy or CABG, showed survival advantage of surgery over medical

therapy for patients with LMCA or three-vessel disease [22]. Later S J Park reported series of 42 patients with stenting of LMCA with immediate and late outcomes in 1998 and suggested stenting of unprotected LMCA as a safe and effective alternative to CABG in a carefully selected patient with normal LV Function with a 22% restenosis at 6 months follow up [23]. Erglis et al. analyzed results of PCI with stenting of LM, 103 patients with stable angina treated with either paclitaxel-eluting stent or bare-metal stent, IVUS and CB were used prior to stenting, which resulted in binary restenosis in 11 (22%) bare-metal stent and in 3 (6%) paclitaxel-eluting stent patients (p = 0.021) [24]. ISAR-LM randomized trial, comparing sirolimus-eluting stent vs. Paclitaxeleluting stent, revealed no significant differences were reported in the composite outcome of death, MI, and TLR at 1 year follow-up, and no difference seen in TLF and 2-year LM-specific revascularization [25].

### **2.6 Early experience of PCI of LMCA with 1st generation DES**

Acute and long term out comes of PCI of LMCA compared with CABG studied in 4 major trials (**Table 1**) using the 1st generation DES – LEMANS [26], SYNTAX left main [27], BOUDRIOT [28], and PRECOMBAT trails [29].

LEMANS [26] trial is the first RCT showed PCI comparable rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 and 5 years with CABG for LM disease. BOUDRIOT [28] study of 100 PCI patient's v/s 101 CABG patients showed PCI was inferior to CABG at one year. In PRECOMBAT [29] trial, 600 patients randomized to LMCA PCI with first-generation drug eluting stent (DES) or CABG which showed 17.5% major adverse cerebro-cardiovascular events (MACCE) in PCI group compared to 14.3% in CABG group at 5 years of follow-up, and no significant differences in the all cause death, MI and stroke with an increased target vessel revascularization in PCI group (11.4% vs. 5.5%). At 10 years, MACCE was 29.8% in the PCI group and 24.7% in the CABG group. No significant differences were found with respect to death, stroke, or MI. However, the incidence of TVR was significantly higher in the PCI group.

A subsequent study from the French Left Main Taxus (FLM Taxus) and the Left Main with Xience (LEMAX) registries [30], comparing 2-year outcomes using either everolimus eluting stent (EES) or paclitaxel eluting stent (PES), demonstrated a reduction in target lesion failure (TLF) – a composite of cardiac death, target vessel MI, and clinically driven TLR – with PES, by 53% at 2 years (EES: 7.6% vs. PES: 16.3%,). Significant differences in target vessel MI (PES: 9.9% vs. EES: 4.1%,) and target vessel failure (PES: 16.3% vs. EES: 7.6%) were associated with EES at 2 years. Furthermore higher SYNTAX Score groups (intermediate-high) demonstrated a trend towards improved clinical benefit in patients treated with EES compared to PES.

The SYNTAX trial [27] was initially published in 2009, and it remains the landmark study for decision-making and risk stratification of complex coronary artery disease (CAD), compared TAXUS (paclitaxel coated stent) v/s CABG consisting of 1800 patients randomized to PCI with TAXUS v/s CABG in Triple Vessel Disease and LM Disease (705 patients) involving 62 EU sites and 23 US sites.

Results were analyzed according to different sub groups based on SYNTAX score (**Figure 3**) - Low SYNTAX score < 22, intermediate score > 22 - <32, and high syntax score > 32. Study showed PCI was inferior to CABG for the composite primary end points of death, MI, stroke and unplanned revascularization [31]. SYNTAX study follow up results of 1 year and 5 years showed that CABG is associated with fewer major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events compared with PCI. The SYNTAX


*Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Current Updates on CABG versus PCI DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104755*

> **Table 1.**

 *Prior trials of PCI vs CABG for LMCA in the era of the 1st generation DES.*

**Figure 3.** *Coronary segment weighting derived from Leamon score.*

study emphasized the heart team concept and the SYNTAX score to assess the risk status by grading of the patients' coronary disease burden. SYNTAX LM subset consisting of low and intermediate score 0–32 showed similar cumulative event rate 32.1% and 31.3% in CABG group v/s TAXUS group at 5 years follow-up and higher cumulative event rate at 5 years follow up in CABG compared to PCI 46.5% v/s 29.7% in LM subset with high SYNTAX SCORE > 33, and results demonstrated that surgery remains the gold standard for patients with complex multi vessel disease. 2009 American college of cardiology (ACC)/American heart association (AHA) guidelines recommended PCI of LMCA class II–b for noncomplex LMCA disease based on metaanalysis of multiple trails among patients with 1st generation DES showed that death, MI and stroke (major adverse cardiac events - MACE) were starting to show similarity in PCI and CABG patients at 1 year.

SYNTAX score guides in assessing severity and extent of CAD and provides information to take proper decision in planning appropriate revascularization strategy. The clinical SYNTAX score is a combination of age, creatinine and ejection fraction (ACEF) model and SYNTAX scores, and subsequent development of a logistic model has provided better risk assessment [31]. The SYNTAX II score is useful to predicts long-term mortality in patients with severe triple-vessel or LMCA disease, and it is assessed by considering anatomical and clinical factors (age, creatinine clearance, LV function, gender, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and peripheral vascular disease) along with SYNTAX score. It was found to be superior to the conventional SYNTAX score in guiding decision-making between CABG and PCI in the risk assessment. The STS (The Society of Thoracic Surgeons) score is a risk-prediction model, validated in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, with a specific model for CABG and combined CABG and valve surgery. It can be used to predict in-hospital or 30-day

mortality and in-hospital morbidity [32]. ACCF/AHA guideline suggests that calculation of the SYNTAX and STS scores is reasonable in patients with unprotected LM and complex CAD (Class IIa recommendation, level of evidence; B).

The DELTA registry (n = 2,775), [33] a multi-center, multinational registry of LM PCI with first generation DES (n = 1,874, PES or SES) against CABG (n = 901) for ULMCA disease, no differences in the primary composite endpoint of all-cause death, CVA and MI were seen (HR 1.11; 95% CI 0.85–1.42; p = 0.47).

### **2.7 Experience of PCI of LMCA with 2nd generation DES**

EXCEL [34] and NOBLE [35] are the two major trials to see efficacy of 2nd generation DES v/s CABG based on the evidence of superior results of 2nd Generation Everolimus drug eluting (XIENCE) in reducing MACE rate against TAXUS in SPRIT III and CIPHER in ISAR-test 4 trail with a lower mortality rate (22%) at 10 years. Unfavorable results reported in some trails of PCI of LMCA lesions may be due to use of earlier generation stents and to various technical issues such as catheter induced dissections, under expansion, uncovered diseased segments, multiple mal apposed stent layers, jailing of Ostium multiple struts, longitudinal compression of struts and accidentally crushed stent which will contribute to worse out comes .Similarly, many advances took place in the field of CABG by total arterial revascularization using left internal mammary artery (LIMA), right internal mammary artery (RIMA), and bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA), on pump v/s off pump Bypass surgery, minimally invasive techniques, sternal sparing, endovascular harvesting, and hybrid philosophy.

The EXCEL trial [34] was a prospective randomized open-label, non-inferiority trial undertaken at 126 centers in 17 countries around the world. Study included 948 patients XIENCE group v/s CABG 957 patients with unprotected LMCA with >70% DS, or > 50–70% with either 1) Non-invasive evidence of LM ischemia, 2) IVUS MLA < 6.0 mm2 , or 3) FFR: <0.80 with SYNTAX SCORE < 32. SYNTAX score was ≤22 in 60.5%, >23 – <32 in 39.5%, and distal LMCA was present in 80.5% of the patients. IVUS guidance was used in nearly 80% of the patients in the PCI group. It included both stable and unstable angina but excluded patients of ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Distal bifurcating lesions were treated with a two-stent strategy using various techniques. CABG was performed both on- and off-pump, with the aim of complete revascularization for vessels with 50% stenosis. There was no difference between the two groups in respect to the primary composite end-point event of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 3 years (15.4% of the patients in the PCI group and in 14.7% of the patients in the CABG group), ischemia-driven revascularization was more frequent after PCI compared to CABG (in 12.6% vs. 7.5% of the patients, p < 0.001), and Stent thrombosis occurred in only 0.7% of patients within 3 years which was less common than symptomatic graft occlusion. EXCEL 5 years follow-up data showed primary end point - All cause death, stroke or MI 22.9% in PCI group v/s 19.2% in CABG group. In EXCEL study [34] IVUS use was not mandatory which was used in only 77% of patients, and no specific bifurcation technique was followed which was left to the operator discretion, and the use of proximal optimization technique (POT) and final kissing balloon (FKB) were also not specified (**Table 2**), these would have influenced study outcomes.

The Nordic-Baltic-British Left Main Revascularization Study [35] is a prospective, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial done at 36 centers in Europe. Patients with


**Table 2.**

*Recommendations for the type of revascularization with left main disease.*

LMCA visually assessed with diameter ≥ 50% or fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 in different segments of the left main coronary artery were randomized to CABG or PCI with Biolimus eluting stent. SYNTAX score was calculated and all patients with low, medium, and high score were included. Patients were treated with the intention of achieving complete revascularization (CR). Distal LM bifurcation was treated with "Culotte" technique in majority of patients, enrolled 592 patients in each group, on-pump CABG was performed in 84% of patients, and LIMA graft was used in 96% of patients. Results showed higher MACCE rate in PCI group (28%) compared to CABG (18%) group due to higher MI and repeat revascularization in PCI group, but without significant difference in overall mortality and stroke rate. PCI group experienced lower stroke rate at 30 days of follow up compared to CABG group, but this difference was not seen at 1- and 5-year follow-up. In NOBLE study, only 75% underwent IVUS, FKB was performed in 55% of patients, 8% were implanted with first generation DES, and these factors might have influenced study outcomes to some extent.

### **2.8 Meta-analysis of PCI vs CABG**

Individual patient data analysis from 11 PCI v/s CABG trails consisting of 11,518 randomized patients out of which, 4,394 (38.9%) (**Figure 4**) patients with LM disease showed all-cause mortality of 10.7% in CABG patient v/s 10.7% in PCI patients at follow-up of 5 years' period which also showed mortality after LM DES v/s CABG 12.8 v/s 14.6% in SYNTAX, 5.7% v/s 7.9% in PRECOMBAT, 13.0% v/s 9.9% in EXCEL and 9.4% vs. 8.7% in NOBLE studies. Higher all-cause mortality was observed in PCI group v/s CABG in LM subset patients with diabetes 16.5% v/s 13.5% and patients with syntax score > 32–15% v/s 12.4% [35].


**Figure 4.** *Meta-analysis of PCI vs CABG.*

### **2.9 Long term evidence of PCI of LMCA with DES**

**LM registry** analysis of a total of 913 patients who underwent LM PCI at FU- WAI hospital between 2004 to 2008 revealed ten year outcomes of unprotected LM PCI in selected patients had acceptable results, though majority were implanted with 1st generation DES, and reduced 10 years mortality of PCI of LM was observed in lower risk patients stratified by SYNTAX Score and SYNTAX II, IVUS guidance, and usage of DES can significantly reduce 10 years mortality, stroke, and MI. Study suggested Age, LV EF, and incomplete revascularization are independent predictors of 10 years death or MI [36].

**MAIN COMPARE** Study of LMCA stenting v/s CABG showed The rate of target vessel failure (TVF), risk of death, and serious composite outcomes higher in PCI compared to CABG after 5 years [37] & 10 years [38] follow up results showed no significant difference in the rates of death and composite end points of death, Q wave MI and stroke between PCI and CABG groups.

The **SYNTAXES** study (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery Extended Survival) is the 10-year follow-up of the original SYNTAX trial [39], comprising 72% of the syntax 10 years' data (No: 1301), showed a comparable survival rate between CABG group 26.7% and PCI group 26.1% at 10 years (**Figure 5**).

### **2.10 Evidence of PCI vs CABG for ostial and shaft LMCA**

Meta-analysis of studies comparing the clinical outcome (MACE) in 3291 patients receiving PCI with DES stenting of Ostial & Mid shaft showed favorable outcome compared with distal LM lesions. Excel study also revealed better 3 years' outcome (Death, MI or Stroke) after Ostial and shaft lesions of LM (CABG 13.5% v/s PCI 12.4%) compared with LM bifurcation v/s CABG (CABG 14.9% v/s 15.6% PCI) [34].

### **2.11 General principles of PCI of LMCA**

PCI of LM is a high risk interventional procedure requires meticulous planning, adequate skills and experience to produce best possible results. PCI of ostium and

**Figure 5.** *SYNTAX left Main at 10 years: Mortality.*

shaft carries better results compared to LM bifurcation. PCI of distal LM associated with more risk and increased MACE due to requirement of more number of stents in complex lesions, and tendency for increased restenosis at ostium of LCX.

High risk may be due to associated co-morbidities, complex coronary anatomy and hemodynamic compromise status. Most of the patients undergoing LM PCI do not require hemodynamic support, but the operator should consider it if he anticipates or encounters any hemodynamic compromise, slow or no reflow or other procedural complications (**Figure 6**). During pre-procedure evaluation of LMCA revascularization screen for its association with carotid artery disease, cerebrovascular disease and peripheral artery disease, aortic aneurysm, and porcelain aorta which make the surgical procedure more challenging. Compared to unprotected lesions, complications of PCI (abrupt closure and restenosis) of protected LMCA lesions are more often well tolerated because of continued flow to the protected territory [40]. Significant LMCA disease more often associated with Carotid artery disease which is seen in nearly 40% of patients undergoing angiography for angina. The AHA guidelines recommend screening of all patients undergoing bypass surgery for left main stem disease to identify carotid artery disease [41].

Take precautions to reduce contrast volume to avoid contrast induced nephropathy (CIN) and exposure to radiation while performing high-risk, complex LM PCI. Use appropriate devices to expedite the procedure by using guide extension catheters, adequate guide catheter backs up for good support, micro catheters, guide wires, balloons to avoid complications related to procedure delay, and use standard current generation DES for best possible results. It would be preferable to keep thin profile balloons to cross critical lesions, high pressure balloons, and scoring balloons to tackle tough un-dilatable lesions which are difficult to dilate with regular NC balloons to improve procedural success and long term outcomes.

### **2.12 Advantages of PCI over CABG**

PCI is less invasive with fewer peri -procedural complications, fewer 30 day MACE, early rapid recovery with better quality of life (QOL) and earlier angina relief. It is preferable in patients who require urgent revascularizations mainly in ACS setting, coexisting serious co-morbidities and comes under high surgical risk (ie., chronic lung disease, advanced age, history of previous stroke, and prior Bypass surgery).

**Figure 6.** *Challenges for LM PCI for interventional cardiologists in high-risk procedures.*

### **2.13 Revascularization strategy of angiographically significant LMCA disease during Acute STEMI-PCI vs CABG**

Revascularization of Acute STEMI patients with significant LM lesions depends upon the culprit vessel, type of MI, dominant vessel, complexity of coronary disease and anatomy, and hemodynamic status. In patients with Acute Inferior STEMI with significant LM (non-culprit) with multi vessel disease, and culprit vessel is right coronary artery (RCA), recommended to perform primary PCI of culprit vessel only with optimal medical therapy for bystander lesions and PCI/CABG of the non-culprit arteries only for spontaneous angina or myocardial ischaemia on stress testing or LM with multi-vessel (MV) PCI guided by angiography or FFR after finishing culprit PCI during same sitting. Primary PCI of Culprit vessel only, followed by angiography or FFR-driven staged PCI of non-culprit arteries during the index hospitalization or after hospital discharge.

Acute STEMI with cardiogenic shock – Recommended to perform culprit vessel PCI initially, then PCI of LM and other vessels is reasonable option if no improvement in hemodynamic status but should be differed if hemodynamic status improves after culprit PCI (**Figure 7**). If culprit vessel is LAD or LCX in STEMI patients with significant LM disease, consider PCI of LM along with PCI of LAD or LCX. If the patient is having STEMI with LM and multi-vessel disease (MVD), perform Primary PCI of culprit vessel, and if the non-culprit vessel or vessels are having significant disease (>70% stenosis), complete the revascularization of all diseased vessels during original hospital stay. If the non-culprit lesion has intermediate lesion (40–70% stenosis), perform PCI of non-culprit lesions under FFR/ iFR guidance or 5–7 days after massive MI.

### **2.14 Early vs Delayed CABG in Acute STEMI**

Early CABG is associated with mortality rate (MR) in acute MI, preferable to postpone surgery for 3 to 5 days in the absence of absolute indications for CABG due to high mortality rate with very early surgery. Multicenter study of 32,099 cases

**Figure 7.**

*A systemic algorithm for LMCA disease in patients with ACS.*

reported by Lee and colleagues, showed mortality rate of 14.2% if operated within 6 hours, vs. 2.7% if operated beyond 15 days [42]. Thielmann et.al reported mortality rate of 23.8% if operated between 7 and 24 hours, and 2.4% if operated between 8 to 14 days period [43]. Early CABG in STEMI is associated with reduction in the size of infarct, and reduces the potential for mechanical complications whereas late CABG associated with reperfusion injury and increased systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).

In STEMI and multi vessel disease associated with cardiogenic shock short-term mechanical support device (e.g., percutaneous cardiopulmonary support, extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or ventricular assist device) with / without intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) may be considered as a rescue therapy in patients with refractory circulatory support.

### **2.15 Hemodynamic support during LM PCI**

Mechanical circulatory support devices should be considered while performing high risk LM interventions particularly in the presence of severe LV dysfunction, unstable status hemodynamic status reflected by left ventricular end diastolic pressure (LVEDP) >20 mm Hg, systolic BP <100 mm Hg, or mixed venous oxygen saturation < 55%, and complex procedures requiring longer time specially while handling diffusely calcified multi vessel disease, or single surviving vessel to avoid sudden hemodynamic collapse which might result in stoppage of procedure in midway, or might not get enough time to carry effective cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to revive the patient.

### **2.16 Influence of stenting technique and optimization on LM PCI outcomes**

Provisional stenting is the technique of choice in bifurcation lesions, as it is technically simpler with improved clinical outcomes to a systematic 2-stent strategy. Many Bifurcation trials like NORDIC [44], BBC ONE [45], BBK [46], CACTUS [47] have not shown any benefit associated with systematic two-stent strategies, and EBC TWO study [48] also showed worse outcomes with systematic dual stenting even in patients with larger, true bifurcations. Ample evidence from non-randomized trials showing worse outcomes for two-stent techniques. However, randomized data from Dr. Shao-Liang Chen et al. support Double Kissing (DK)-crush in left main bifurcations Patients with true bifurcation should be treated with two stents preferably with DKC, because of recent evidence of better results, compared to provisional stenting, and other two stent techniques [49]. DKCRUSH II showed that a 2-stent strategy using the double kissing (DK) crush technique is superior to provisional stenting particularly in more complex lesions [50]. DKCRUSH-III, showed superior results of DK crush over Coulotte technique at 3 years with lower MACCE rate (8.2% vs. 23.7%) and stent thrombosis (0% vs. 3.7%) [51]. DKCRUSH-V study showed superior results DK crush technique compared to provisional stenting in distal LM bifurcation in terms of lower TLF at 1 year (5% versus 10.7%) and stent thrombosis (0.4% versus 3.3%) [52]. Recently, published EBC MAIN was designed to examine clinical outcomes in patients are treated equally well with a stepwise layered provisional approach, starting with a single stent, as with a more complex dual stent implant, and Only one-fifth of patients in provisional group required second stent showed Procedure time, X-ray dose and consumables were less, fewer adverse events systematic provisional (n-230) vs. systematic dual approach (n 237) with a MACE rate of 14.7% vs. 17.7%,

*Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Current Updates on CABG versus PCI DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104755*

Death 3%vs. 4.2%, MI 10% vs10.1%, TLR 6.1% vs. 9.3%, and stent thrombosis (ST) 1.7% vs. 1.3%, they concluded that The stepwise provisional strategy should remain the approach of choice for the majority of left main bifurcation interventions [53]. Angio graphic ISR more frequent in lesions with under-expansion than without (24.1% Vs 5.4%), and proper use of kissing balloon and POT is essential to get the good expansion and proper opposition of stent struts. In the 2 stent group, the lesions with complete expansion of all sites showed a restenosis of only 6%, similar to that in the single stent group (6.3%). It would be preferable to achieve post bifurcation PCI MSA of LM > 8 mm2 , LM confluence >7mm2 , LAD ostium >6mm2 and LCX ostium >5mm2 or aim to achieve mean reference diameter of stented area at least >80% compared to proximal and distal reference areas. Post-stenting under-expansion was an independent predictor of 2-year MACE, especially repeat revascularization (**Figure 8**).

Intravascular imaging and FFR should be used to optimize DES results, to stent only physiologically significant lesions, to avoid unnecessary stenting thereby reduces number of stents. Kang et al. evaluated IVUS predictors of ISR after LM bifurcation stenting, and post-stenting IVUS mean stent area (MSA) cut-offs that best predicted ISR on a segmental basis were 5.0 mm<sup>2</sup> (ostial LCX), 6.3 mm<sup>2</sup> (ostial LAD), 7.2 mm<sup>2</sup> (POC, confluence zone of LAD and LCX), and 8.2 mm2 (LM above the POC). A smaller IVUS-MSA within any one of these segments was responsible for a higher rate of angiographic ISR and clinical major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [54].

IVUS guided PCI of LM stenting associated with trend towards decreased mortality that is 13.6% v/s 6.0%. ADAPT – DES [55] study and ULTIMATE study [56], and recent IVUS meta-analysis also highlighted the same, implement the optimal stenting techniques and optimize DES implantation with IVI to provide best acute and long term results.

### **2.17 CABG vs PCI of LMCA in diabetics**

CABG is the standard revascularization strategy in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and multi-vessel or complex CAD with long term favorable outcomes. Recent evidence suggests that PCI is a safe and effective modality for patients with LMCA

### **Figure 8.** *Criteria for stent under-expansion at the distal LMCA bifurcation.*

disease with <22 and > 22 to <32 syntax score as compared with CABG, no significant difference in the 10-year risks of mortality and serious composite outcome after PCI or CABG in patients both with and without DM, but the risk of TVR was consistently higher after PCI. In a recent pooled analysis of individual patient data, the presence of DM was reported to have a significant interaction effect for 5-year mortality favoring CABG over PCI in patients with multi-vessel CAD, but not in those with LMCA disease. These findings also confirmed the impact of DM with respect to the primary composite end point and mortality in the subgroup analysis of the EXCEL trial with low-to- intermediate SYNTAX scores.

The FREEDOM trial 8 years' follow-up data showed that CABG leads to lower allcause mortality than PCI in patients with DM with multi vessel disease [57]. The benefit of CABG in patients with DM might be attributed to complete revascularization in more diffuse and complex multi vessel CAD. By contrast, moving on to the DES era, DM did not appear to modify the treatment effects of PCI and CABG for LMCA disease.

### **2.18 Influence of Hospital and operator volume on LM PCI outcomes**

Hospital and operator volume also impacts the outcomes of LMCA PCI, and results are better in a center with a high volume and operated by high volume operator (**Figure 9**), all cause death (0.5% v/s 2.1%) and cardiac death (0.5 v/s 2.1%). Study revealed that results are better with the operators who were performing at least 15 PCI of LMCA per year in 3 consecutive years [58].

### **2.19 Heart team approach – Risk assessment of CABG vs PCI**

LM PCI out comes can be improved with the proper selection of patients after assessing risk v/s benefit by involving Heart team with adequate counseling and education about decease nature and various modes of treatment options. All patients with LM disease should be assessed with SYNTAX, Functional SYNTAX, SYNTAX II, EURO & STS scores (**Table 3**) to assess risk and mortality rate and to decide plan of treatment

**Figure 9.** *Impact of operator volume on outcomes of LMCA PCI.*


### **Table 3.**

*Criteria for the choice between PCI and CABG.*

involving Heart team. The most widely used surgical risk score is the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score. It classifies operative risk based on predicted risk of mortality into low (<4%), intermediate (4% to <8%), high (8% to <12%), or extreme (≥12%). The newly incorporated "Functional SYNTAX score" (Functional SXscore) essentially incorporates FFR measurements into the SYNTAX Score calculation, and was recently shown potentially to improve the stratification of low and high risk patients, when compared to the conventional visual-based angiographic approach [59]. The heart team should assess risks and benefits of surgery in the high- and extreme-risk population, and careful evaluation of clinical history, physical examination for co-morbidities with necessary investigations to plan for appropriate revascularization strategies after proper and repeated counseling of the patient and his or her relatives. Special attention should be focused on frailty, cognitive status, acute and long term results, importance of life style modification including stopping of smoking and long term usage and adherence of drug therapy to control risk factors and to prevent recurrence of angina and MI from progression of atheroma in grafts and native vessels.

Currently, in the US guidelines (**Table 2**), PCI has a class IIa recommendation ("is reasonable") in select patients with isolated LM stenosis involving the ostium or shaft and without coexisting multi vessel disease and the risk of surgical bypass is increased. PCI has a class IIb recommendation ("may be reasonable") in patients with LM stenosis involving the distal bifurcation or with less complex coexisting multi vessel disease as defined by a low or intermediate SYNTAX score (≤33) and who have an elevated surgical risk. The current US guidelines recommend against PCI in patients who are good candidates for surgical bypass with coexisting complex multi vessel disease as defined by highest tertile of the SYNTAX score (≥33). Hybrid bypass is another revascularization approach m that combines coronary bypass using a minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass approach of grafting the LIMA to LAD artery and PCI to the remaining vessels in an attempt to achieve the most desired aspects of each revascularization strategy. Always aim for complete revascularization because major adverse cardiovascular events including mortality are higher in patients with incomplete revascularization than those with complete revascularization regardless of the revascularization strategy.

### **2.20 Who should be treated with CABG?**

CABG has more durable long term outcome with fewer adverse events beyond 30 days particularly MI due to protection against future events, improved long term relief of angina and repeat revascularization procedures particularly in more complex anatomies more often due to complete revascularization. It is preferred in patients with poor LV function, long standing DM, concomitant cardiac surgery, high bleeding risk patients who are unable to comply with dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT). CABG scores over PCI in patients with LM with addition Triple Vessel Disease, unsuitable for PCI due to complex anatomy, severely calcified and tortuous of coronaries, chronic total occlusion (CTO), Multiple diffuse long segment lesions, and complex ISR lesions. Patients with critical LMCA disease with severe symptoms or with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, which is believed to be ischemic in origin should be subjected for early surgery because of increased incidence of sudden death. CABG surgery associated with in hospital mortality rate of 1%, and < 3% perioperative MI in lowrisk patients Surgery associated with increased incidence of Peri -operative MI, bleeding and transfusions, arrhythmias, renal failure, increased incidence of sternal dehiscence, and Repeat revascularization. Predictors of increased mortality after CABG are emergency procedure, extreme age, past history of cardiac surgery, female gender, LV dysfunction, severity of LM stenosis, and number of vessels with significant stenosis.

### **2.21 On pump vs off pump CABG**

CABG with on-pump surgery considered as a preferred and standard revascularization procedure for 80% of CAD patients after seeing successful results of series of surgical cases following first CABG in the late 1960s. On-pump surgery has problems related to manipulation of the ascending aorta leading cerebrovascular accidents particularly in patients with aotic-atheroma and porcelain aorta, myo-necrosis due to aortic occlusion, cognitive dysfunction, renal failure, and systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Whereas, off-pump surgical technique overcomes these limitations, and is more often associated with hemodynamic instability, mainly in patients with recent MI, LV dysfunction, dilated ventricles, and while grafting the branches of the LCx in patients with significant mitral insufficiency, and less complete revascularization. Compared to traditional on-pump CABG with LIMA to LAD, irrespective of SVG or arterial grafts to other vessels neither off-pump CABG nor the use of bilateral internal mammary arteries has been shown to improve CABG outcomes in RCTs.

### **2.22 Influence of arterial vs venous grafts on long term outcomes of CABG**

Advantages of CABG over PCI - PCI treats an isolated lesion in the proximal vessel, complexity of the lesion affects clinical outcome, CABG by passes the proximal 2/3 of the vessel, where current lesions and future threatening lesions can occur. This advantage will persist, even if stent restenosis is zero. The LIMA is the ideal graft of choice to bypass the LAD artery (Class I recommendation for ACCF/AHA guideline for CABG surgery) due to graft patency of LIMA is >90% after 10 years. LIMA is resistant to atherosclerosis, and release prostacyclin and nitric oxide contributing to vasodilation, inhibition of platelet function, and improved survival rate which is independent of the patient's sex, age, extent of CAD, and LV systolic

*Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Current Updates on CABG versus PCI DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104755*

function. LIMA to LAD graft decreases the occurrence of late MI, reoperation, recurrence of angina, and repeated hospitalizations. Radial artery graft patency results are better when it is grafted to Lcx with >70% narrowing and worst when it is used to graft the RCA with a stenosis of only moderate severity. Patency of Radial artery grafts better when used for >90% lesions, and choose the radial artery of nondominant upper-limb, and radial artery with a > 2 mm diameter after testing modified Allen test for ulnar dominance. Combination of LIMA, RIMA, radial artery, and or gastroepiploic artery may be used for full arterial revascularization processes. Reversed saphenous vein grafts are also routinely used in combination with LIMA, RIMA, and other arterial grafts in patients undergoing CABG surgery depending upon suitability of grafts. Saphenous vein grafts (SVG) have a track record of poor long-term patency with a closure rate of about 10–25% during 1st year post CABG period, an additional closure rate of 1–2% each year during the 1–5 years of post-surgery, and 4–5% occlude each year between 6 and 10 years postoperatively, with an overall 10 years' patency of SVGs is about 50–60%. Major determinants of graft selection are age, severity of narrowing of the vessel and hemodynamic status of the patient. LIMA-LAD graft should be offered to all patients with LMCA disease undergoing CABG either with on-pump or off-pump with aim of total revascularization.

### **2.23 Post CABG progression of atherosclerosis**

Post CABG patients develops progression of atherosclerosis in native vessels which was accelerated by vein grafts and observed in over 50% of the native vessels, 35% of native coronary arteries bypassed with a venous grafts progressed to total occlusion in 35% of SVG compared to 8% of LIMA. Vein graft failure associated with increased death, MI and revascularization.

### **2.24 Adjunctive Therapy and supportive measures for LM disease**

All patients with LMCA with or without revascularization should be emphasized about the need to continue adequate guideline directed therapies such as DAPT, anti-Hypertensive (calcium channel blockers (CCB), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), and beta blockers (BB)), anti-Diabetic drugs (SGL2 inhibitors, and Metformin), high dose statin therapy, and drugs for LV Dysfunction (ARNIs, SGL2 inhibitors, aldosterone antagonists, and beta blockers) to provide better long term results of revascularization. Patients with poly vascular disease should be recommended with Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bid, and aspirin 100 mg, diabetics with renal dysfunction and heart failure should be supplemented with SGL2 inhibitors to reduce repeat hospitalizations, and MACE rates. During follow up all patients should be monitored for any recurrence of symptoms which requires appropriate evaluation with necessary investigations and adequate control of risk factors and life style modification.

### **3. Conclusion**

Angiographic assessment of borderline LM lesions (30–70%) is inaccurate with significant inter-observer variability.1 Intravascular imaging is helpful in assessing severity and to decide revascularization strategies particularly in patients with

angiography showing lesions of uncertain severity, and recent evidence is in more favor of image guided PCI over angio guided PCI with improved clinical outcomes.

### **Acknowledgements**

The author would like to thank Mr. Manikandhar Pendyala and Mr. Chandrashekar Challa for their assistance in the manuscript preparation.

### **Author details**

Sridhar Kasturi Department and Senior Interventional Cardiologist, Sunshine Hospitals, Secunderabad, Telangana, India

\*Address all correspondence to: sridharkasturi@yahoo.com

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Villa AD, Sammut E, Nair A, Rajani R, Bonamini R, Chiribiri A. Coronary artery anomalies overview: The normal and the abnormal. World Journal of Radiology. 2016;**8**(6):537

[2] Park SJ, Park DW. Percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation versus coronary artery bypass surgery for treatment of left main coronary artery disease: Is it time to change guidelines? Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2009;**2**(1):59-68

[3] Stary HC, Chandler AB, Dinsmore RE, Fuster V, Glagov S, Insull W Jr, et al. A definition of advanced types of atherosclerotic lesions and a histological classification of atherosclerosis: A report from the Committee on Vascular Lesions of the Council on Arteriosclerosis. American Heart Association. Circulation. 1995; **92**(5):1355-1374

[4] Gould KL, Kirkeeide RL, Buchi M. Coronary flow reserve as a physiologic measure of stenosis severity. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1990;**15**(2):459-474

[5] Sanchis-Gomar F, Perez-Quilis C, Leischik R, Lucia A. Epidemiology of coronary heart disease and acute coronary syndrome. Annals of Translational Medicine. 2016;**4**(13):1-12

[6] Oviedo C, Maehara A, Mintz GS, Araki H, Choi SY, Tsujita K, et al. Intravascular ultrasound classification of plaque distribution in left main coronary artery bifurcations: Where is the plaque really located? Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2010;**3**(2):105

[7] Fathala A. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: Techniques, interpretation, indications and reporting. Annals of Saudi medicine. 2011;**31**(6):625-634

[8] Chen ML, Mo YH, Wang YC, Lo HS, Wang PC, Chao IM, et al. 64-slice CT angiography for the detection of functionally significant coronary stenoses: Comparison with stress myocardial perfusion imaging. The British Journal of Radiology. 2012; **85**(1012):368-376

[9] Koo BK, Erglis A, Doh JH, Daniels DV, Jegere S, Kim HS, et al. Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms: Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW (Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve) study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011;**58**(19):1989-1997

[10] Finet G, Huo Y, Rioufol G, Ohayon J, Guerin P, Kassab GS. Structure-function relation in the coronary artery tree: Ffluid dynamics to arterial bifurcations. EuroIntervention. 2010;**6**:419

[11] Murray CD. The physiological principle of minimum work applied to the angle of branching of arteries. The Journal of General Physiology. 1926;**9**(6):835

[12] Ramadan R, Boden WE, Kinlay S. Management of left main coronary artery disease. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2018;**7**(7):e008151

[13] Kasturi S. Current status of intravascular imaging during coronary interventions. World Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases. 2021;**11**(8):389-419

[14] de la Torre Hernandez JM, Hernández Hernandez F, Alfonso F, Rumoroso JR, Lopez-Palop R, Sadaba M, et al. Prospective application of predefined intravascular ultrasound criteria for assessment of intermediate left main coronary artery lesions: Results from the multicenter LITRO study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011; **58**(4):351-358

[15] Park SJ, Ahn JM, Kang SJ, Yoon SH, Koo BK, Lee JY, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-derived minimal lumen area criteria for functionally significant left main coronary artery stenosis. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2014;**7**(8): 868-874

[16] Berry C, McClure JD, Oldroyd KG. Meta-analysis of death and myocardial infarction in the DEFINE-FLAIR and iFR-SWEDEHEART trials. Circulation. 2017;**136**(24):2389-2391

[17] VA Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Cooperative Study Group. Eighteen-year follow-up in the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for stable angina. Circulation. 1992;**86**(1):121-130

[18] European Coronary Surgery Study Group. Prospective Randomised study of coronary artery bypass surgery in stable angina pectoris: Second Interim Report by the. The Lancet. 1980;**316**(8193):491-495

[19] Fisher LD, Judkins MP, Lesperance J, Cameron A, Swaye P, Ryan T, et al. Reproducibility of coronary arteriographic reading in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS). Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis. 1982;**8**(6):565-575

[20] Takaro T, Peduzzi P, Detre KM, Hultgren HN, Murphy ML, Van der Bel-Kahn J, et al. Survival in subgroups of patients with left main coronary artery disease. Veterans Administration Cooperative Study of Surgery for

Coronary Arterial Occlusive Disease. Circulation. 1982;**66**(1):14-22

[21] O'Keefe JH Jr, Hartzler GO, Rutherford BD, McConahay DR, Johnson WL, Giorgi LV, et al. Left main coronary angioplasty: Early and late results of 127 acute and elective procedures. The American Journal of Cardiology. 1989;**64**(3):144-147

[22] Yusuf S, Zucker D, Passamani E, Peduzzi P, Takaro T, Fisher LD, et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: Overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. The Lancet. 1994;**344**(8922):563-570

[23] Park SJ, Park SW, Hong MK, Cheong SS, Lee CW, Kim JJ, et al. Stenting of unprotected left main coronary artery stenoses: Immediate and late outcomes. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1998;**31**(1):37-42

[24] Erglis A, Narbute I, Kumsars I, Jegere S, Mintale I, Zakke I, et al. A randomized comparison of paclitaxeleluting stents versus bare-metal stents for treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2007; **50**(6):491-497

[25] Mehilli J, Kastrati A, Byrne RA, Bruskina O, Iijima R, Schulz S, et al. Paclitaxel-versus sirolimus-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2009;**53**(19):1760-1768

[26] Buszman PE, Buszman PP, Banasiewicz-Szkróbka I, Milewski KP, Żurakowski A, Orlik B, et al. Left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization: 10-year outcomes of the (Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting) *Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Current Updates on CABG versus PCI DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104755*

LE MANS Trial. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2016;**9**(4):318-327

[27] Ong AT, Serruys PW, Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Holmes DR Jr, et al. The SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) study: Design, rationale, and run-in phase. American Heart Journal. 2006;**151**(6):1194-1204

[28] Boudriot E, Thiele H, Walther T, Liebetrau C, Boeckstegers P, Pohl T, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimuseluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main stem stenosis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011;**57**(5):538-545

[29] Ahn JM, Roh JH, Kim YH, Park DW, Yun SC, Lee PH, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease: 5-year outcomes of the PRECOMBAT study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2015; **65**(20):2198-2206

[30] Moynagh A, Salvatella N, Harb T, Darremont O, Boudou N, Dumonteil N, et al. Two-year outcomes of everolimus vs. paclitaxel-eluting stent for the treatment of unprotected left main lesions: A propensity score matching comparison of patients included in the French Left Main Taxus (FLM Taxus) and the LEft MAin Xience (LEMAX) registries. Eurointervention: Journal of Europcr in Collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2013;**9**(4):452-462

[31] Cho Y, Shimura S, Aki A, Furuya H, Okada K, Ueda T. The SYNTAX score is correlated with long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting for complex coronary artery lesions.

Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. 2016;**23**(1):125-132

[32] Krishna N, Varma PK. Risk stratification in cardiac surgery. Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2015;**31**(3):224-233

[33] Chieffo A, Meliga E, Latib A, Park SJ, Onuma Y, Capranzano P, et al. Drugeluting stent for left main coronary artery disease: The DELTA registry: A multicenter registry evaluating percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main treatment. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2012;**5**(7):718-727

[34] Park DW, Park SJ. Percutaneous coronary intervention of left main disease: Pre-and post-EXCEL (evaluation of XIENCE everolimus eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass surgery for effectiveness of left main revascularization) and NOBLE (Nordic-Baltic-British left main revascularization study) era. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2017;**10**(6):e004792

[35] Sabatine MS, Bergmark BA, Murphy SA, O'Gara PT, Smith PK, Serruys PW, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease: An individual patient data metaanalysis. The Lancet. 2021;**398**(10318): 2247-2257

[36] Gao L, Gao Z, Song Y, Guan C, Xu B, Chen J, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of unprotected left main percutaneous coronary intervention: A large single-centre experience. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 2021;**2021**:10. Article ID 8829686. DOI: 10.1155/2021/ 8829686

[37] Park DW, Seung KB, Kim YH, Lee JY, Kim WJ, Kang SJ, et al.

Long-term safety and efficacy of stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: 5-year results from the MAIN-COMPARE (Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization) registry. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2010; **56**(2):117-124

[38] Park DW, Ahn JM, Yun SC, Yoon YH, Kang DY, Lee PH, et al. 10 year outcomes of stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2018;**72** (23 Part A):2813-2822

[39] Thuijs DJ, Kappetein AP, Serruys PW, Mohr FW, Morice MC, Mack MJ, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with threevessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial. The Lancet. 2019; **394**(10206):1325-1334

[40] Park SJ, Kim YH. Percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Cardiology Clinics. 2010;**28**(1):81-95

[41] Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, Bittl JA, Bridges CR, Byrne JG, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011; **58**(24):e123-e210

[42] Lee DC, Oz MC, Weinberg AD, Ting W. Appropriate timing of surgical intervention after transmural acute myocardial infarction. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2003;**125**(1):115-120

[43] Thielmann M, Neuhäuser M, Marr A, Herold U, Kamler M, Massoudy P, et al. Predictors and outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting in ST elevation myocardial infarction. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 2007;**84**(1):17-24

[44] Steigen TK, Maeng M, Wiseth R, Erglis A, Kumsars I, Narbute I, et al. Randomized study on simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: The Nordic bifurcation study. Circulation. 2006; **114**(18):1955-1961

[45] Hildick-Smith D, de Belder AJ, Cooter N, Curzen NP, Clayton TC, Oldroyd KG, et al. Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug-eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions: The British Bifurcation Coronary Study: Old, new, and evolving strategies. Circulation. 2010; **121**(10):1235-1243

[46] Ferenc M, Gick M, Comberg T, Rothe J, Valina C, Toma A, et al. Culotte stenting vs. TAP stenting for treatment of de-novo coronary bifurcation lesions with the need for side-branch stenting: The Bifurcations Bad Krozingen (BBK) II angiographic trial. European Heart J. 2016;**37**(45):3399-3405

[47] Colombo A, Bramucci E, Saccà S, Violini R, Lettieri C, Zanini R, et al. Randomized study of the crush technique versus provisional side-branch stenting in true coronary bifurcations: The CACTUS (Coronary Bifurcations: Application of the Crushing Technique Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stents) Study. Circulation. 2009;**119**(1):71-78

*Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Current Updates on CABG versus PCI DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104755*

[48] Hildick-Smith D, Behan MW, Lassen JF, Chieffo A, Lefèvre T, Stankovic G, et al. The EBC TWO Study (European Bifurcation Coronary TWO) A Randomized Comparison of Provisional T-Stenting Versus a Systematic 2 Stent Culotte Strategy in Large Caliber True Bifurcations. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. Sep 2016; **9**(9):e003643

[49] Chen SL. In the face of cunning enemy: DK crush writes legend. European Heart Journal. 2020;**41**:3763-3764

[50] Chen SL, Santoso T, Zhang JJ, Ye F, Xu YW, Fu Q, et al. A randomized clinical study comparing double kissing crush with provisional stenting for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: Results from the DKCRUSH-II (Double Kissing Crush versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions) trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011; **57**(8):914-920

[51] Chen SL, Xu B, Han YL, Sheiban I, Zhang JJ, Ye F, et al. Clinical outcome after DK crush versus culotte stenting of distal left main bifurcation lesions: The 3-year follow-up results of the DKCRUSH-III study. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2015;**8**(10):1335-1342

[52] Chen SL, Zhang JJ, Han Y, Kan J, Chen L, Qiu C, et al. Double kissing crush versus provisional stenting for left main distal bifurcation lesions: DKCRUSH-V randomized trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2017;**70**(21):2605-2617

[53] Hildick-Smith D, Egred M, Banning A, Brunel P, Ferenc M, Hovasse T, et al. The European bifurcation club Left Main Coronary Stent study: A randomized comparison of stepwise provisional vs. systematic dual stenting strategies (EBC MAIN).

European Heart Journal. 2021;**42**(37): 3829-3839

[54] 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. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2011;**4**(6):562-569

[55] Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Weisz G, Rinaldi MJ, Neumann FJ, Metzger DC, et al. Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES): A prospective multicentre registry study. The Lancet. 2013;**382**(9892):614-623

[56] Gao XF, Ge Z, Kong XQ, Kan J, Han L, Lu S, et al. 3-year outcomes of the ULTIMATE trial comparing intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2021;**14**(3):247-257

[57] Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Dangas GD, Godoy LC, Mack MJ, Siami FS, et al. Long-term survival following multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes: The FREEDOM follow-on study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2019;**73**(6): 629-638

[58] Cho SC, Park DW, Park SJ. Percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting for the treatment of left main coronary artery disease. Korean Circulation Journal. 2019;**49**(5):369-383

[59] Dehnee A, Gerula C, Mazza V, Maher J, Dhruvakumar S, Kaluski E. The functional SYNTAX score: A huge step forward or research in motion? Journal of Invasive Cardiology. 2012;**24**(6): 304-305

## *Edited by Takashi Murashita*

The book *"Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting"* is an excellent update for health care professionals, taking care of patients who are suffering from severe coronary artery disease. The 8 chapters in this book were written by experts in their topics. The first section describes the perioperative management. The second section describes the details of various surgical techniques. The last section discusses the superiority of CABG vs PCI. I believe this book will suffice the interests of our readers.

Published in London, UK © 2022 IntechOpen © jasminam / iStock

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Coronary Artery Bypass

Grafting

*Edited by Takashi Murashita*