Acute ischemic complications of PCI and CABG: who should cover whom for coronary revascularization?

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has historically required cardiothoracic backup in the event of ischemic complications. However, many complications occurring during PCI can now be effectively treated at the time of the indexed procedure. Equally, ischemic complications, which occur following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), which were previously treated medically or with reoperation, may now also be effectively treated by acute PCI. AIMS AND METHODS: To identify the rate, cause, treatment, and outcomes of ischemic complications from PCI or isolated CABG procedures undertaken from January 2004 to January 2011 where there was immediate crossover from PCI to CABG or vice versa, and to determine from the indexed revascularization procedure, whether or not the ischemic complications were rectified by either CABG with respect to PCI or PCI with respect to CABG. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-six PCI major ischemic complications were identified. Three hundred forty-seven (97.5%) were rectified percutaneously and 9 (2.5%) required emergency CABG. The commonest reason for emergency CABG was occlusive dissection (n=7). Of the 9 patients that underwent emergency CABG, 3 patients (33.3%) died. Forty CABG major ischemic complications were identified. Twenty-seven (67.5%) were treated medically. Thirteen (32.5%) underwent diagnostic angiography. The etiology of the ischemia was found in all cases. Consequently, 2 underwent reoperation, one was treated medically, and 10 underwent acute PCI. CONCLUSION: Acute coronary ischemia remains a small but significant complication of both PCI and CABG. Resolution of ischemia requires prompt diagnosis and early discussion between cardiothoracic surgeon and cardiac interventionalist to determine the safest and therefore most appropriate way to resolve the problem.

Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug-eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions: the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies.

BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy for treating coronary bifurcation lesions remains a subject of debate. With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be superior to systematic 2-stent strategies. Drug-eluting stents, however, have low rates of restenosis and might offer improved outcomes with complex stenting techniques. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with significant coronary bifurcation lesions were randomized to either a simple or complex stenting strategy with drug-eluting stents. In the simple strategy, the main vessel was stented, followed by optional kissing balloon dilatation/T-stent. In the complex strategy, both vessels were systematically stented (culotte or crush techniques) with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation. Five hundred patients 64+/-10 years old were randomized; 77% were male. Eighty-two percent of lesions were true bifurcations (>50% narrowing in both vessels). In the simple group (n=250), 66 patients (26%) had kissing balloons in addition to main-vessel stenting, and 7 (3%) had T stenting. In the complex group (n=250), 89% of culotte (n=75) and 72% of crush (n=169) cases were completed successfully with final kissing balloon inflations. The primary end point (a composite at 9 months of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure) occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P=0.009). Myocardial infarction occurred in 3.6% versus 11.2%, respectively (P=0.001), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 2.0% versus 8.0% (P=0.002), respectively. Procedure duration and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. CONCLUSIONS: When coronary bifurcation lesions are treated, a systematic 2-stent technique results in higher rates of in-hospital and 9-month major adverse cardiovascular events. This difference is largely driven by periprocedural myocardial infarction. Procedure duration is longer, and x-ray dose is higher. The provisional technique should remain the preferred strategy in the majority of cases. Clinical Trial Registration Information- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00351260.