Surgical repair of a left main coronary artery aneurysm.

We report the repair of a 6.5 × 5.3-cm left main coronary artery aneurysm by marsupialization of the aneurysm sac and coronary artery bypass grafting.

A Validated Model to Identify Patients With Low Likelihood of High-Risk Coronary Artery Disease Anatomy.

In stable coronary artery disease (CAD), revascularization improves outcomes only for patients with high-risk coronary anatomy (HRCA). We sought to derive and validate a prediction model, incorporating clinical and exercise stress test characteristics, to identify patients with HRCA. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing exercise stress testing at Cleveland Clinic (2005 to 2014), followed by invasive coronary angiography within 3 months. We excluded patients with acute coronary syndrome, known CAD or ejection fraction <50%. HRCA was defined as left main, 3-vessel, or 2-vessel disease involving the proximal left anterior descending artery. Clinical and stress test predictors of HRCA were identified in a multivariable logistic regression model, internally validated with 1,000-fold bootstrapping. The model was then externally validated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (2017 to 2019). The model was derived from 2,758 patients with complete data. HRCA was identified in 418 patients (15.2%) in the derivation cohort. The model consisted of 10 variables: age, male gender, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus, family history of premature CAD, high-density lipoprotein, chest pain, exercise time, and Duke Treadmill Score. Bias-corrected c-statistic was 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.77 to 0.81) with excellent calibration. In all, 762 patients (27.6%) had a predicted probability and observed prevalence of HRCA <5%. In the validation cohort, the model had a c-statistic of 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.85) and 210 patients had an observed prevalence of HRCA <5% (40%). In conclusion, an externally validated prediction model, based on clinical characteristics and exercise stress test variables, can identify stable patients with CAD who have HRCA.

Coronary artery aneurysms: outcomes following medical, percutaneous interventional and surgical management.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery aneurysms (CAAs) are increasingly diagnosed on coronary angiography; however, controversies persist regarding their optimal management. In the present study, we analysed the long-term outcomes of patients with CAAs following three different management strategies. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patient records with documented CAA diagnosis between 2000 and 2005. Patients were divided into three groups: medical management versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We analysed the rate of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) over a period of 10 years. RESULTS: We identified 458 patients with CAAs (mean age 78±10.5 years, 74.5% men) who received medical therapy (N=230) or underwent PCI (N=52) or CABG (N=176). The incidence of CAAs was 0.7% of the total catheterisation reports. The left anterior descending was the most common coronary artery involved (38%). The median follow-up time was 62 months. The total number of MACCE during follow-up was 155 (33.8%); 91 (39.6%) in the medical management group vs 46 (26.1%) in the CABG group vs 18 (34.6%) in the PCI group (p=0.02). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that CABG was associated with better MACCE-free survival (p log-rank=0.03) than medical management. These results were confirmed on univariate Cox regression, but not multivariate regression (OR 0.773 (0.526 to 1.136); p=0.19). Both Kaplan-Meier survival and regression analyses showed that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and anticoagulation were not associated with significant improvement in MACCE rates. CONCLUSION: Our analysis showed similar long-term MACCE risks in patients with CAA undergoing medical, percutaneous and surgical management. Further, DAPT and anticoagulation were not associated with significant benefits in terms of MACCE rates. These results should be interpreted with caution considering the small size and potential for selection bias and should be confirmed in large, randomised trials.