Clinical Case of Unprotected Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Elderly Patient With Porcelain Aorta
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has long been considered the gold standard in the treatment of patients with lesions of the left main (LM) coronary artery. Elderly patients are one of the most difficult categories of patients with LM lesions due to severe coronary artery calcification. Thanks to constant progress in the field of engineering and technology, it has become possible to perform percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for patients with unprotected stenosis of the LM. Drug-eluting stents and the development of pharmacotherapy have improved the results of PCI in these lesions. Comparative studies of the efficacy and safety of PCI and CABG have shown similar results in terms of the need for revascularization. Patients with severe calcification of the coronary arteries mostly belong to the older age group and hold large part in this cohort. Technological advances enabled to treat patients with complex coronary anatomy and LM lesions not only through CABG, but also through PCI. Comparative studies show that the efficacy and safety of PCI and CABG have similar results in terms of the need in revascularization.
The aim. To highlight the importance of discussion of each clinical case by the heart team and comprehensive approach with the use of modern equipment.
Stage 1. A 80-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus was delivered by an ambulance team to the National Amosov Institute of Cardiovascular Surgery with severe pain; the patient was diagnosed with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Electrocardiography revealed ST-segment depression in leads V1-V5. After performing echocardiographic examination, valvular pathology and segmental contraction defects were not detected, EF 52%.
Urgent coronary angiography revealed significant calcification of the ascending aorta (porcelain aorta) and coronary arteries. Coronary artery lesions: 90% unstable LM stenosis, significant calcified stenosis of the circumflex artery (CA), middle left anterior descending artery (mid-LAD), and chronic coronary occlusion of the right coronary artery, besides, 5 episodes of ventricular tachycardia were recorded. Despite the high SYNTAX Score I and SYNTAX Score II, due to the clinical picture and heart rhythm disorders, the heart team decided to perform emergency PCI. Bare-metal stent for LM – mid-LAD was implanted and angioplasty of mid-LAD was performed. Rough calcification of LM caused stent recoil; postdilatation of LM stent by high pressure balloon (p = 25 atm) was performed. The operation ended with a good angiographic result. The woman was discharged in a stable condition to plan further intervention in 1 month.
Stage 2. A 81-year-old woman with complaints of severe chest pain was re-hospitalized with NSTEMI to the National Amosov Institute of Cardiovascular Surgery 3 months after the primary PCI. Echocardiography revealed EF 53%; valvular pathology and segmental contraction defects were not detected. Urgent coronary angiography revealed 90% of LM stenosis (stent recoil – loss of radial rigidity). Gradual angioplasty of LM stenosis and CA stenosis were performed.
Stage 3. For reinforcing the radial rigidity in LM, LM – CA drug-eluting stent was implanted. Angioplasty of LM and CA using kissing balloon technique was performed. Final proximal optimization of LM showed good angiographic result.
2. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning AP, Benedetto U, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87-165. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394
3. Buszman PE, Buszman PP, Banasiewicz-Szkróbka I, Milewski KP, Żurakowski A, et al. Left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization: 10-year outcomes of the (left main coronary artery stenting) LE MANS trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(4):318-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2015.10.044
4. Thuijs DJFM, Kappetein AP, Serruys PW, Mohr FW, Morice MC, Mack MJ, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10206):1325-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31997-X. Erratum in: Lancet. 2020;395(10227):870.
5. Holm NR, Mäkikallio T, Lindsay MM, Spence MS, Erglis A, Menown IBA, 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, non-inferiority NOBLE trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):191-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32972-1
6. Stone GW, Kappetein AP, Sabik JF, Pocock SJ, Morice MC, Puskas J, et al. Five-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for left main coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(19):1820-30. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1909406
7. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Ståhle E, Colombo A, et al. Five-year outcomes in patients with left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery trial. Circulation. 2014;129(23):2388-94. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006689
8. Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, Hardison RM, Kelsey SF, MacGregor JM, et al. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(24):2503-15. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0805796
9. 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(20):2198-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.033
10. Rihal CS, Naidu SS, Givertz MM, Szeto WY, Burke JA, Kapur NK, et al.; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI); Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA); Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS); American Heart Association (AHA), and American College of Cardiology (ACC). 2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS Clinical Expert Consensus Statement on the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiovascular Care: Endorsed by the American Heart Assocation, the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad Latino Americana de Cardiologia Intervencion; Affirmation of Value by the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology-Association Canadienne de Cardiologie d’intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(19):e7-e26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.036