This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tan, W. A. Articles by Ellis, S. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tan, W. A. Articles by Ellis, S. G. Related Collections Catheter-based coronary interventions: stents

(Circulation. 2001;104:1609.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.

Clinical Investigation and Reports

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After Unprotected Left Main Trunk Percutaneous Revascularization in 279 Patients

Walter A. Tan, MD, MS; Hideo Tamai, MD; Seung-Jung Park, MD, PhD; H.W. Thijs Plokker, MD, PhD; Masakiyo Nobuyoshi, MD; Takahiko Suzuki, MD; Antonio Colombo, MD; Carlos Macaya, MD; David R. Holmes, Jr, MD; David J. Cohen, MD; Patrick L. Whitlow, MD; Stephen G. Ellis, MD; , for the ULTIMA Investigators^*

Pittsburgh Vascular Institute, UPMC Shadyside, Pittsburgh, Pa (W.A.T.); Shiga Medical Center, Moriyama City, Japan (H.T.); Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea (S.-J.P.); St Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, Netherlands (T.P.); Kokura Memorial Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan (M.N.); National Toyohashi Higashi Hospital, Toyohashi, Japan (T.S.); Centro Cuore Columbus, Milano, Italy (A.C.); Hospital Universitario San Carlos, Madrid, Spain (C.M.); Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (D.R.H.); Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Boston, Mass (D.J.C.); and the Section of Interventional Cardiology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (P.L.W., S.G.E.).

Correspondence to Stephen G. Ellis, MD, Director, Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories, F-25, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44195. E-mail elliss{at}ccf.org

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Background— Percutaneous coronary revascularization (PCI) has been increasingly applied to unprotected left main trunk (LMT) lesions, with varied long-term success. This study attempts to define the predictors of outcome in this population.

Methods and Results— Two hundred seventy-nine consecutive patients who had LMT PCI at 1 of 25 sites between 1993 and 1998 were studied. Forty-six percent of these patients were deemed inoperable or at high surgical risk. Thirty-eight patients (13.7%) died in hospital, and the rest were followed up for a mean of 19 months. The 1-year incidence was 24.2% for all-cause mortality, 20.2% for cardiac mortality, 9.8% for myocardial infarction, and 9.4% for CABG. Independent correlates of all-cause mortality were left ventricular ejection fraction 30%, mitral regurgitation grade 3 or 4, presentation with myocardial infarction and shock, creatinine 2.0 mg/dL, and severe lesion calcification. For the 32% of patients <65 years old with left ventricular ejection fraction >30% and without shock, the prevalence of these adverse risk factors was low. No periprocedural deaths were observed in this low-risk subset, and the 1-year mortality was only 3.4%.

Conclusions— Patients undergoing unprotected LMT PCI have frequent serious comorbidities and consequently have high event rates. PCI may be an alternative to CABG for a select proportion of elective patients and may also be appropriate for highly symptomatic inoperable patients. Meticulous follow-up of hospital survivors is required because of the rather high mortality during the first few months after treatment.

Key Words: angioplasty • coronary disease • revascularization • stents

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) has been the standard of care for left main trunk (LMT) disease ever since the Veterans Administration Cooperative Study established its superiority over medical therapy with regard to survival.¹ Percutaneous coronary revascularization (PCI) was shown in randomized clinical trials in the 1990s to be equivalent to CABG in terms of rates of survival and infarct-free survival in a growing number of patients with coronary artery disease.^2–5 Although the early experience of PCI for unprotected LMT (ULMT) showed satisfactory short-term technical success rates, follow-up revealed high attrition rates, leading to recommendations proscribing this practice for CABG-eligible patients.^6,7 The advent of better PCI equipment, stents, and ablative devices in the mid-1990s, along with reports of good intermediate-term outcomes in selected patients, have ushered in a renewed interest in the practice of ULMT percutaneous revascularization.^8–12

Randomized clinical trials to address this issue are unlikely to be performed because of logistic considerations of prohibitive sample size and cost requirements. Therefore, a multicenter registry was established to evaluate outcomes after ULMT PCI.¹³ The purpose of the present analysis is to describe long-term outcomes and define the predictors of outcome for this cohort of patients.

	Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Study Population
Patient and procedural data were obtained from 25 high-volume clinical sites.¹³ The entry criteria were consecutive patients undergoing PCI to an ULMT from July 1993 to July 1998. A maximum enrollment of 50 patients per site was implemented to avoid domination of contributions from any single center.

Data Collection
Data collection and analysis have been described previously (see also Tables 1 to 3).¹³

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1. Baseline Demographics

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2. Baseline Angiographic Characteristics

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 3. In-Hospital Treatment

Statistical Analysis
Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to determine the specific and composite 1-year event rates for both hospital survivors and the entire cohort.¹⁴ Variables with a univariate value of P0.10 and relevant clinical predictors known from other studies (age, sex, diabetes) were entered into the initial Cox proportional hazards model.¹⁵ A 1-step classification and regression tree (CART) method (S plus V4.5, MathSoft, Inc) was used adjunctively to identify low-risk clusters of patients. This low-risk subgroup comprised 32% of the entire study population. It consisted of patients <65 years of age who had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >30% and were not in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with cardiogenic shock. The SAS system version 6.12 was used for all computations.¹⁶

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Patients
Baseline characteristics of the entire study population are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The regional contributions were as follows: Europe 31.3%, Japan 33.5%, Korea 13.7%, South America 1.1%, and the United States 20.5%. As expected, the low-risk cohort of patients had a smaller proportion of unfavorable characteristics (eg, renal insufficiency, acute MI, severe mitral regurgitation [MR]) compared with the entire cohort. These patients were also much more commonly from Japan and South Korea, where there are strong social prohibitions against surgery. Complete data regarding right coronary artery (RCA) patency were unavailable in 132 patients, primarily because of study centers having only the films of the intervention itself.

Thirty-eight patients (13.7%) died in hospital, most of whom had presented with AMI. The 1-year follow-up rate was 97.1%, with a mean follow-up of 19 months. Two patients were lost to follow-up because of emigration abroad, and 3 patients from one center could not be contacted for their 1-year follow-up.

Treatments Received
The treatment profile of these patients is outlined in Table 3. Of note, almost half of the study population had adjunctive intra-aortic counterpulsation. Ten patients (3.6%) received stenting for a bailout indication, and another 65.2% of patients received it as primary therapy. Approximately 15% of patients were treated with balloon angioplasty (PTCA) alone, and only 4.3% of patients received abciximab. Among the low-risk patients, there was less use of support devices, and only 4.5% received PTCA as sole device therapy for their ULMT stenoses. Twenty-one percent of patients had therapy to other coronary segments during the index procedure.

In-Hospital and Long-Term Outcomes
There were a total of 75 deaths, 61 of which were cardiac related (Figures 1 and 2). By multivariate analysis, covariates of all-cause mortality (in-hospital and long-term) were LVEF 30%, hazard ratio (HR) 4.2; MR grade 3 or 4, HR 3.7; clinical presentation of MI with cardiogenic shock, HR 3.6; serum creatinine 2.0 mg/dL, HR 3.1; and severe lesion calcification, HR 2.3 (Table 4). Except for lesion calcification, the predictors of cardiac death were similar, although different in magnitude: MR grade 3 or 4, HR 5.0; LVEF 30%, HR 4.9; MI with cardiogenic shock, HR 4.8; and serum creatinine 2.0 mg/dL, HR 3.2. The 1-year specific and composite outcomes for death, MI, or CABG are summarized in Table 5.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Overall survival in complete cohort.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 4. Correlates of All-Cause Mortality (In-Hospital and During Follow-Up)

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 5. One-Year Actuarial Outcomes in the Entire Population and Selected Subgroups*

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Cardiac survival in complete cohort.

In the low-risk subset of 89 patients selected by CART analysis, the 1-year actuarial incidence of death was 3.4%, and that of MI was 2.3%. Of note, there were no periprocedural deaths in this subgroup, and there were no additional deaths or MI beyond 4 months after discharge (up to 35 months). The corresponding revascularization rates were 11.4% for CABG, 20.4% for PCI, and 24.5% for either during the 1-year follow-up (Table 5).

Long-Term Outcome in Hospital Survivors
For the 240 patients who survived their index hospitalization, the rates for death, MI, and CABG at 1 year were 12.2%, 8.7%, and 8.7%, respectively. Most of these events, and MI in particular, occurred within the first 3 months after ULMT PCI (Table 6 and Figure 3). The correlates of postdischarge mortality are shown in Table 7. Excess deaths were observed predominantly in patients initially deemed inoperable. In addition, non-Q-wave MI complicating PCI and diminished LV function also foreshadowed late events for these survivors of initial hospitalization. Specific event rates for each of these high-risk subgroups are provided in Table 8.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 6. Overall Patient Outcomes (Including In-Hospital Events)

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Freedom from infarction in complete cohort.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 7. Independent Correlates of Postdischarge Mortality

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 8. One-Year Actuarial Outcomes for High-Risk Patient Subsets Among Hospital Survivors

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
The first report of PTCA applied to ULMT disease was published by Gruntzig in 1978.¹⁷ Other reports followed,^18–21 with the largest series published by O’Keefe et al⁶ in 1989, demonstrating technical feasibility but a 64% 3-year mortality rate. Planned PCI for ULMT disease was subsequently reserved for patients who were ineligible for surgery. Increased operator experience, the availability of stents, ablative devices,^22–24 hemodynamic support devices, and encouraging results in protected LMT PCI and CABG-ineligible patients prompted a resurgence of this procedure despite an initial paucity of data.^{5,9,10,25–27} The initial report from the ULTIMA registry characterizing the outcomes of 107 patients, the largest series on ULMT PCI at that time, however, revealed a disturbingly high 6-month death rate of 10.6.¹³ Many of these patients had been deemed high risk or ineligible for CABG, however. In addition, compared with earlier large surgical trials of CABG versus medical therapy or PCI, the patients in this registry were at higher risk because of greater age and the inclusion of higher-risk patient subsets of acute coronary syndromes and cardiogenic shock.^1,28,29

For this heterogeneous group of patients, in-hospital mortality was 14.0% and overall 1-year mortality was 20.2%. The independent correlates of all-cause death during and after hospitalization were LVEF 30%, grade 3 or 4 MR, clinical presentation of MI with cardiogenic shock, serum creatinine 2.0 mg/dL, and severe lesion calcification. Decreasing LVEF was related to events in an inverse fashion but not linearly, with an apparent inflection point at the 30% LVEF cutoff level.

On the basis of this analysis, the 32% of patients identified by 3 clinical features—age <65 years, LVEF >30%, and absence of cardiogenic shock from AMI—composed a low-risk group and had a 3.4% 1-year mortality (Table 5). At 1 year, 9 in 10 had been spared CABG. Similar data were recently reported by Silvestri et al,³⁰ who defined a low-risk group with age <75 years, no prior CABG, LVEF 35%, and the absence of renal failure, poor coronary runoff, or severe respiratory failure, whose 1-year mortality was 7% and need for revascularization 28%. For purposes of comparison, recent data from the Society of Thoracic Surgery³¹ indicate an in-hospital mortality for patients with left main disease of 3.9%, and data from The Cleveland Clinic Foundation show an in-hospital mortality of 2.3%, with a 1-year mortality of 11.3%.⁸ One-year mortality after bypass for a low-risk group similar to that identified in this analysis of (age <65 years, New York Heart Association congestive heart failure class 2 [LVEF was not routinely obtained in this surgical series]) was 5.7%.⁸

The limitations of this study are those inherent to registries requiring long-term patient follow-up. There was a low rate of use of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists in this registry, and it remains to be seen whether these agents can deliver the improved outcomes observed in the non-LMT stenosis trials.^32–34 Even though multivariate analysis of the available data revealed no significant effect of concomitant RCA occlusion, missing data elements for this field preclude any definitive conclusion that this feature is not contributory to outcome. Data about collateral flow were not recorded. An analysis using a worst-case scenario in which missing elements were assumed to represent an occluded RCA, however, showed only a trend for significance and did not appreciably alter our conclusions (data not shown). Definitions of several patient characteristics, such as "not a candidate for bypass surgery," are subjective and certainly varied between institutions. Finally, although generally supported by the experiences of Kosuga et al,⁹ Park et al,¹⁰ Silvestri et al,³⁰ Chanhan et al,³⁵ and others, the low-risk group identified in this study requires prospective confirmation.

Judicious patient selection remains critical for both the interventionalist and cardiac surgeon, and further studies are needed to define which patients are truly inoperable, who among these patients still may benefit from PCI, and those in whom revascularization attempts will be futile. Unfortunately, patients who are good candidates for surgery are typically the same ones who will do well with other invasive procedures, and poor surgical risks often mean poor global risks. It is fair to say that CABG is still the first choice for the majority of patients with ULMT disease, but PCI is a viable option in select circumstances: those presenting with AMI,³⁶ the highly symptomatic but inoperable patient, and perhaps the low-risk patient group described here.

Finally, on the basis of the 2% per month death rate among hospital survivors noted over the first 6 months after hospital discharge, probably partly a result of restenosis, we strongly urge routine surveillance angiography at 2 and 4 months after treatment.

	Appendix

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
ULTIMA Investigators
Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio: S.G. Ellis, W.A. Tan, P.L. Whitlow. Shiga Medical Center for Adult Diseases, Moriyama City, Japan: H. Tamai, K. Kosuga. Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea: S. Park. St Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, Netherlands: H.W.T. Plokker, S.F.C. Verstraete, M.J. Suttorp. Kokura Memorial Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan: M. Nobuyoshi, T. Tamura. National Toyohashi Higashi Hospital, Toyohashi City, Japan: T. Suzuki. Centro Cuore Columbus, Milan, Italy: A. Colombo, M. Farraro. Hospital Universitario San Carlos, Madrid, Spain: C. Macaya. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn: D.R. Holmes, Jr. Beth Israel Hospital, Boston, Mass: D. Cohen, D. Baim. Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY: J. Moses, J. Higgins. Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK: U. Sigwart, F. Amin. Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, France: P.G. Steg. William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich: C. Grines, R. Safian, W. O’Neill. Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation, La Jolla, Calif: P. Teirstein. Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minn: M. Mooney. Southwest Cardiology Associates, Albuquerque, NM: H.J. White. Erasmus University/Thoraxcenter, Netherlands: P.W. Serruys. Hospital de Clinicas, Caracas, Venezuela: F. Tortoledo. Cardiovascular Consultants, Inc, Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo: T. Shimshak. Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki City, Japan: K. Mitsudo. St Vincent Hospital, Portland, Ore: P.C. Block. Universitätsklinikum-Essen, Essen, Germany: R. Erbel, F. Liu. Washington Cardiology Center, Washington, DC: M. Leon, J.J. Popma, T. Bucher. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass: J. Bittl.

	Acknowledgments

 
The authors gratefully acknowledge superb secretarial assistance from Patricia L. Durnwald and Laura D. Reinhard.

	Footnotes

 
*See Appendix for complete list of ULTIMA investigators.

Received January 18, 2001; revision received July 23, 2001; accepted July 25, 2001.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 

1. Takaro T, Peduzzi P, Detre KM, 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: 14–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
2. The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease [published erratum appears in N Engl J Med 1997;336:147]. N Engl J Med. . 1996; 335: 217–225.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
3. CABRI Trial Participants. First-year results of CABRI (Coronary Angioplasty versus Bypass Revascularization Investigation). Lancet. . 1995; 346: 1179–1184.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
   
4. King SBIII, Lembo NJ, Weintraub WS, et al. A randomized trial comparing coronary angioplasty with coronary bypass surgery. Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial (EAST). N Engl J Med. . 1994; 331: 1044–1050.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
5. Coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery: the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trial. Lancet. . 1993; 341: 573–580.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
   
6. O’Keefe JH Jr, Hartzler GO, Rutherford BD, et al. Left main coronary angioplasty: early and late results of 127 acute and elective procedures. Am J Cardiol. . 1989; 64: 144–147.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
   
7. Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). J Am Coll Cardiol. . 1988; 12: 529–545.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
   
8. Ellis SG, Hill CM, Lytle BW. Spectrum of surgical risk for left main coronary stenoses: benchmark for potentially competing percutaneous therapies. Am Heart J. . 1998; 135: 335–338.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
   
9. Kosuga K, Tamai H, Ueda K, et al. Initial and long-term results of angioplasty in unprotected left main coronary artery. Am J Cardiol. . 1999; 83: 32–37.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
   
10. Park SJ, Park SW, Hong MK, et al. Stenting of unprotected left main coronary artery stenoses: immediate and late outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. . 1998; 31: 37–42.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
11. Turi ZG. Reconsidering unprotected left main coronary angioplasty. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. . 1995; 36: 368–370.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
12. Tommaso CL. Has the time come for percutaneous intervention of left main coronary artery disease? Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. . 1996; 37: 81–82.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
13. Ellis SG, Tamai H, Nobuyoshi M, et al. Contemporary percutaneous treatment of unprotected left main coronary stenoses: initial results from a multicenter registry analysis 1994–1996. Circulation. . 1997; 96: 3867–3872.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
14. Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data. New York, NY: John Wiley; 1980.
    
15. Cox DR. Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc. . 1972; B34: 187–220.
    
16. SAS-Institute. SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 6. 4th ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 1990.
    
17. Gruntzig A. Transluminal dilatation of coronary-artery stenosis [letter]. Lancet. . 1978; 1: 263.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
18. Kent KM, Bentivoglio LG, Block PC, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: report from the Registry of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Am J Cardiol. . 1982; 49: 2011–2020.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
19. Stertzer SH, Myler RK, Insel H, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in left main stem coronary stenosis: a five-year appraisal. Int J Cardiol. . 1985; 9: 149–159.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
20. Hartzler GO, Rutherford BD, McConahay DR, et al. "High-risk" percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. . 1988; 61: 33G–37G.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
21. Eldar M, Schulhoff N, Herz I, et al. Results of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the left main coronary artery. Am J Cardiol. . 1991; 68: 255–256.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
22. Foster-Smith K, Garratt KN, Nunez BD, et al. Strategies for the palliation of severe unprotected left main coronary artery disease: use of newer technologies. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. . 1995; 36: 364–367.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
23. Chaix AF, Barragan P, Silvestri M, et al. Rotablator and endoprosthesis on the left main coronary trunk [in French]. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. . 1995; 88: 95–97.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
24. Eigler NL, Weinstock B, Douglas JS Jr, et al. Excimer laser coronary angioplasty of aorto-ostial stenoses: results of the excimer laser coronary angioplasty (ELCA) registry in the first 200 patients. Circulation. . 1993; 88: 2049–2057.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
25. Macaya C, Alfonso F, Iniguez A, et al. Stenting for elastic recoil during coronary angioplasty of the left main coronary artery. Am J Cardiol. . 1992; 70: 105–107.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
26. Laruelle CJ, Brueren GB, Ernst SM, et al. Stenting of "unprotected" left main coronary artery stenoses: early and late results. Heart. . 1998; 79: 148–152.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
27. Keeley EC, Aliabadi D, O’Neill WW, et al. Immediate and long-term results of elective and emergent percutaneous interventions on protected and unprotected severely narrowed left main coronary arteries. Am J Cardiol. . 1999; 83: 242–246.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
28. European Coronary Surgery Study Group . Long-term results of prospective randomized study of coronary artery bypass surgery in stable angina pectoris. Lancet. . 1982; 2: 1173–1180.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
29. Chaitman BR, Fisher LD, Bourassa MG, et al. Effect of coronary bypass surgery on survival patterns in subsets of patients with left main coronary artery disease: report of the Collaborative Study in Coronary Artery Surgery (CASS). Am J Cardiol. . 1981; 48: 765–777.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
30. Silvestri M, Barragan P, Sainsous J, et al. Unprotected left main coronary artery stenting: immediate and medium-term outcomes of 140 elective procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol. . 2000; 35: 1543–1550.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
31. Society of Thoracic Surgery National Database. ctsnet.org/doc/3037.
    
32. The EPISTENT Investigators. Randomized placebo-controlled and balloon-angioplasty-controlled trial to assess safety of coronary stenting with use of platelet glycoprotein-IIb/IIIa blockade: evaluation of platelet IIb/IIIa inhibitor for stenting. Lancet. . 1998; 352: 87–92.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
33. The PURSUIT Trial Investigators: Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy. Inhibition of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa with eptifibatide in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. . 1998; 339: 436–443.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
34. The EPILOG Investigators. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blockade and low-dose heparin during percutaneous coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med. . 1997; 336: 1689–1696.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
35. Chauhan A, Zubaid M, Ricci DR, et al. Left main intervention revisited: early and late outcome of PTCA and stenting. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. . 1997; 41: 21–29.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
36. Marso SP, Steg G, Plokker T, et al. Catheter-based reperfusion of unprotected left main stenosis during an acute myocardial infarction (the ULTIMA experience). Am J Cardiol. . 1999; 83: 1513–1517.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. J. White, G. Kedia, J. M. Mirocha, M. S. Lee, J. S. Forrester, W. C. Morales, S. Dohad, S. Kar, L. S. Czer, G. P. Fontana, et al. Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Percutaneous Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for Treatment of Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., June 1, 2008; 1(3): 236 - 245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. G. Malvindi, J. Dunning, and N. Vitale For which patients with left main stem disease is percutaneous intervention rather than coronary artery bypass grafting the better option? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, April 1, 2008; 7(2): 306 - 314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. P. Taggart, S. Kaul, W. E. Boden, T. B. Ferguson Jr, R. A. Guyton, M. J. Mack, P. T. Sergeant, R. J. Shemin, P. K. Smith, and S. Yusuf Revascularization for unprotected left main stem coronary artery stenosis stenting or surgery. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 4, 2008; 51(9): 885 - 892. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. E. Buszman, S. R. Kiesz, A. Bochenek, E. Peszek-Przybyla, I. Szkrobka, M. Debinski, B. Bialkowska, D. Dudek, A. Gruszka, A. Zurakowski, et al. Acute and late outcomes of unprotected left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 5, 2008; 51(5): 538 - 545. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. S. Teirstein Unprotected Left Main Intervention: Patient Selection, Operator Technique, and Clinical Outcomes J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., February 1, 2008; 1(1): 5 - 13. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. F. Sabik III, E. H. Blackstone, M. Firstenberg, and B. W. Lytle A Benchmark for Evaluating Innovative Treatment of Left Main Coronary Disease Circulation, September 11, 2007; 116(11_suppl): I-232 - I-239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. W. Stone, J. W. Moses, and M. B. Leon Left Main Drug-Eluting Stents: Natural Progression or a Bridge Too Far? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 7, 2007; 50(6): 498 - 500. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. P. Taggart Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting is Still the Best Treatment for Multivessel and Left Main Disease, But Patients Need to Know Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2006; 82(6): 1966 - 1975. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Kimmelstiel Multislice Computed Tomography After Left Main Drug-Eluting Stenting: Are We Putting the CarT Before the Horse? Circulation, August 15, 2006; 114(7): 616 - 619. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. A.G. Van Mieghem, F. Cademartiri, N. R. Mollet, P. Malagutti, M. Valgimigli, W. B. Meijboom, F. Pugliese, E. P. McFadden, J. Ligthart, G. Runza, et al. Multislice Spiral Computed Tomography for the Evaluation of Stent Patency After Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting: A Comparison With Conventional Coronary Angiography and Intravascular Ultrasound Circulation, August 15, 2006; 114(7): 645 - 653. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Kereiakes and D. P. Faxon Left Main Coronary Revascularization at the Crossroads Circulation, May 30, 2006; 113(21): 2480 - 2484. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Chieffo, N. Morici, F. Maisano, E. Bonizzoni, J. Cosgrave, M. Montorfano, F. Airoldi, M. Carlino, I. Michev, G. Melzi, et al. Percutaneous Treatment With Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation Versus Bypass Surgery for Unprotected Left Main Stenosis: A Single-Center Experience Circulation, May 30, 2006; 113(21): 2542 - 2547. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Valgimigli, P. Malagutti, G. A. Rodriguez-Granillo, H. M. Garcia-Garcia, J. Polad, K. Tsuchida, E. Regar, W. J. Van der Giessen, P. de Jaegere, P. De Feyter, et al. Distal Left Main Coronary Disease Is a Major Predictor of Outcome in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Intervention in the Drug-Eluting Stent Era: An Integrated Clinical and Angiographic Analysis Based on the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) and Taxus-Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) Registries J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 18, 2006; 47(8): 1530 - 1537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Price, E. Cristea, N. Sawhney, J. A. Kao, J. W. Moses, M. B. Leon, R. A. Costa, A. J. Lansky, and P. S. Teirstein Serial Angiographic Follow-Up of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 21, 2006; 47(4): 871 - 877. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. S. Baim, L. Mauri, and D. C. Cutlip Drug-Eluting Stenting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Are We Ready to Replace Bypass Surgery? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 21, 2006; 47(4): 878 - 881. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Valgimigli, P. Malagutti, J. Aoki, H. M. Garcia-Garcia, G. A. Rodriguez Granillo, C. A.G. van Mieghem, J. M. Ligthart, A. T.L. Ong, G. Sianos, E. Regar, et al. Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent Implantation for the Percutaneous Treatment of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: A Combined RESEARCH and T-SEARCH Long-Term Analysis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 7, 2006; 47(3): 507 - 514. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. C. Smith Jr, T. E. Feldman, J. W. Hirshfeld Jr, A. K. Jacobs, M. J. Kern, S. B. King III, D. A. Morrison, W. W. O'Neill, H. V. Schaff, P. L. Whitlow, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention--Summary Article: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 3, 2006; 47(1): 216 - 235. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. C. Smith Jr, T. E. Feldman, J. W. Hirshfeld Jr, A. K. Jacobs, M. J. Kern, S. B. King III, D. A. Morrison, W. W. O'Neill, H. V. Schaff, P. L. Whitlow, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention--Summary Article: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) Circulation, January 3, 2006; 113(1): 156 - 175. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S.-J. Park Inflammatory Biomarkers for Prediction of Outcomes After Unprotected Left Main Coronary Intervention Circulation, October 11, 2005; 112(15): 2226 - 2227. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Palmerini, A. Marzocchi, C. Marrozzini, P. Ortolani, F. Saia, L. Bacchi-Reggiani, S. Virzi, S. Gianstefani, and A. Branzi Preprocedural Levels of C-Reactive Protein and Leukocyte Counts Predict 9-Month Mortality After Coronary Angioplasty for the Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis Circulation, October 11, 2005; 112(15): 2332 - 2338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K Kosuga and H Tamai Left main stem coronary disease: the case for percutaneous coronary intervention in a high risk patient with complex disease Heart, June 1, 2005; 91(suppl_3): iii35 - iii38. [Full Text] [PDF]

				N Curzen Percutaneous coronary intervention in unprotected left main stem disease: the state of play Heart, June 1, 2005; 91(suppl_3): iii39 - iii41. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Valgimigli, C. A.G. van Mieghem, A. T.L. Ong, J. Aoki, G. A. R. Granillo, E. P. McFadden, A. P. Kappetein, P. J. de Feyter, P. C. Smits, E. Regar, et al. Short- and Long-Term Clinical Outcome After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for the Percutaneous Treatment of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Insights From the Rapamycin-Eluting and Taxus Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital Registries (RESEARCH and T-SEARCH) Circulation, March 22, 2005; 111(11): 1383 - 1389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S.-J. Park, Y.-H. Kim, B.-K. Lee, S.-W. Lee, C. W. Lee, M.-K. Hong, J.-J. Kim, G. S. Mintz, and S.-W. Park Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: Comparison with bare metal stent implantation J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 1, 2005; 45(3): 351 - 356. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

A.-A. Fassa, K. Wagatsuma, S. T. Higano, V. Mathew, G. W. Barsness, R. J. Lennon, D. R. Holmes Jr, and A. Lerman Intravascular ultrasound-guided treatment for angiographically indeterminate left main coronary artery disease: A long-term follow-up study J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 18, 2005; 45(2): 204 - 211.