Left Main Disease: The Last Frontier for Medical Therapy in Stable Coronary Artery Disease?

European cardiology Pub Date : 2025-09-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.15420/ecr.2025.28
Armin Arbab-Zadeh, Michelle Graham, Hector M Garcia-Garcia, Gb John Mancini, William S Weintraub, William E Boden
{"title":"Left Main Disease: The Last Frontier for Medical Therapy in Stable Coronary Artery Disease?","authors":"Armin Arbab-Zadeh, Michelle Graham, Hector M Garcia-Garcia, Gb John Mancini, William S Weintraub, William E Boden","doi":"10.15420/ecr.2025.28","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) involving ≥50% stenosis in the left main coronary artery almost invariably undergo revascularisation. However, there is lack of evidence from contemporary randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) supporting the superiority of this approach versus an initial strategy of intensive, multifaceted optimal medical therapy (OMT) directed at dyslipidaemic, hypertensive, thrombotic, metabolic and ischaemic targets. Current clinical practice guidelines still base their recommendations on small subsets of RCTs conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s. Given the lack of survival benefit among patients with stable, multi-vessel coronary artery disease who do versus those do not undergo routine revascularisation in the era of advanced OMT, the question arises whether the current treatment recommendations for left main disease are valid. This issue is of considerable importance; while significant left main disease is found in only 8-10% of diagnostic invasive angiography cases, it is a disease entity associated with a high risk of adverse clinical events and extensive resource use. This article discusses clinical trials data as well as challenges to address this question in the contemporary era. It highlights the complexities of trial planning and execution as it relates to both feasibility and equipoise, study design, choice of trial endpoints and duration of follow-up. The authors conclude there is a compelling need for an RCT to test the hypothesis that the current practice of routine revascularisation for all patients with LMD is superior to an initial strategy of multifaceted OMT with selective use of revascularisation.</p>","PeriodicalId":93994,"journal":{"name":"European cardiology","volume":"20 ","pages":"e24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12481371/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15420/ecr.2025.28","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) involving ≥50% stenosis in the left main coronary artery almost invariably undergo revascularisation. However, there is lack of evidence from contemporary randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) supporting the superiority of this approach versus an initial strategy of intensive, multifaceted optimal medical therapy (OMT) directed at dyslipidaemic, hypertensive, thrombotic, metabolic and ischaemic targets. Current clinical practice guidelines still base their recommendations on small subsets of RCTs conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s. Given the lack of survival benefit among patients with stable, multi-vessel coronary artery disease who do versus those do not undergo routine revascularisation in the era of advanced OMT, the question arises whether the current treatment recommendations for left main disease are valid. This issue is of considerable importance; while significant left main disease is found in only 8-10% of diagnostic invasive angiography cases, it is a disease entity associated with a high risk of adverse clinical events and extensive resource use. This article discusses clinical trials data as well as challenges to address this question in the contemporary era. It highlights the complexities of trial planning and execution as it relates to both feasibility and equipoise, study design, choice of trial endpoints and duration of follow-up. The authors conclude there is a compelling need for an RCT to test the hypothesis that the current practice of routine revascularisation for all patients with LMD is superior to an initial strategy of multifaceted OMT with selective use of revascularisation.

左主干疾病:稳定型冠状动脉疾病医学治疗的最后前沿?
在左主干冠状动脉狭窄≥50%的稳定型冠状动脉疾病(CAD)患者几乎无一例外都要进行血运重建。然而,当代随机对照临床试验(RCTs)缺乏证据支持这种方法优于针对血脂异常、高血压、血栓形成、代谢和缺血目标的强化、多方面最佳药物治疗(OMT)的初始策略。目前的临床实践指南仍然基于20世纪70年代和80年代初进行的一小部分随机对照试验的建议。考虑到在晚期OMT时代,稳定的多支冠状动脉疾病患者接受常规血运重建术与不接受常规血运重建术相比缺乏生存获益,目前左主干疾病的治疗建议是否有效的问题出现了。这个问题相当重要;虽然只有8-10%的诊断性侵入性血管造影病例发现明显的左主干疾病,但它是一种与不良临床事件高风险和大量资源使用相关的疾病实体。本文讨论了临床试验数据以及在当代解决这一问题的挑战。它强调了试验计划和执行的复杂性,因为它涉及可行性和均衡性、研究设计、试验终点的选择和随访时间。作者得出结论,迫切需要一项随机对照试验来验证这样的假设,即目前对所有LMD患者进行常规血运重建的做法优于最初的多面OMT和选择性使用血运重建的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信