Is surgery or percutaneous revascularization the preferred strategy for patients with significant left main coronary stenosis? Percutaneous Revascularization Is the Preferred Strategy for Patients With Significant Left Main Coronary Stenosis

In the early 1970s, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) was found to improve late survival in comparison to medical therapy in patients with significant left main stenosis.1–3 Once CABG became the standard of care for left main disease, a distinction between “protected”—by at least 1 patent bypass graft to the left coronary artery—and “unprotected left main (UPLM)”— no patent bypass graft to the left coronary artery—was made. In the 1980s, early attempts at balloon angioplasty of UPLM stenoses were associated with poor early outcomes because of coronary dissection, abrupt closure, and restenosis. Mortality rates as high as 30% at 1 year were reported.4–6 In the 1990s, bare metal stents were introduced and soon used to treat UPLM disease. Several small registries found a low rate of procedural complications, but repeat revascularization rates of 20% to 30% because of restenosis were considered unacceptable.7–12 Early bare metal stent registries for UPLM also found high mortality rates, particularly in high-risk patients, such as patients with acute coronary syndromes and poor left ventricular function. Importantly, high-risk subgroups often presented with late sudden death after stenting.11,13 In the early 2000s, the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES), with the promise of vastly reduced rates of restenosis,14 –17 raised the possibility of improved late outcomes in this challenging patient group. Response by Smith p 1033