Search

Left main coronary artery disease is known as the highest risk lesion subset of ischemic heart disease. Several studies have shown a significant benefit following treatment with coronary artery bypass grafting compared with medical treatment. As a result, surgery has been the standard of care for the revascularization of left main disease for a long time. However, with the remarkable improvements in interventional cardiology, percutaneous coronary intervention has become technically feasible and showed favorable clinical outcomes.We sought to evaluate trends in treatment strategies of left main coronary artery disease over time in Sahloul University Hospital and to compare patient's characteristics as well as early, mid-term and long-term adverse outcomes of each therapeutic option.From 2005 to 2016, 260 patients with unprotected left main disease (defined as stenosis of at least 50%) were included. 109 patients underwent PCI (group 1), 102 patients underwent Surgery (group 2) and 49 patients were medically treated (group 3). Major cardiac and cerebrovascular events were defined as the composite of: mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and need for repeat revascularization. Event rates were estimated with Kaplan-Meier analyses.Over time, the proportion of patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention rather than coronary artery bypass grafting increased substantially, whereas the proportion of patients who received medical therapy remained steady. Group 1 patients had more cardiogenic shock (6.4% vs 0%, p=0,01) at presentation compared to group 2. More patients treated with surgery had multivessel disease (73% vs 40%; p0.001), more distal left main bifurcation lesions (52.3% vs 73.5%; p=0.001) and higher SYNTAX scores (23.3±9.96 vs 32.5±8.7; p0.001). All the other baseline variables were similar. At follow up, there were no differences, at the adjusted analysis, in the rate of myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and the composite endpoint of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (HR: 1, 04; 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.83; p=0.88). Compared to percutaneous coronary intervention group, group 2 has a higher all-cause mortality (p=0.017) driven exclusively by an elevated incidence of operative mortality (13.7% vs. 6.4%; HR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.017 to 0.43; p=0.003). Nevertheless, long-term advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over percutaneous coronary intervention was the less need for repeat revascularization (HR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.26 to 8.12; p=0.014).Our data show that revascularization therapy have evolved remarkably in the favor of percutaneous coronary intervention over the last decade. Angioplasty and coronary artery bypass graft show comparable safety. However, the need for revascularization is more common after percutaneous treatment.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a public health problem. In most cases, it is the consequence of ventricular arrhythmias. The only treatment of proven effectiveness is the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).To describe indications for ICD implantation according to the underlying heart disease and report it's short and long-term results.We report a retrospective and descriptive study involving 90 patients implanted with an ICD in our facility collected between January 2003 and December 2014.The average age of our population was 49 ± 15 years (14-76). A male predominance was noted (sex ratio: 6). Ischemic heart disease was the most common underlying heart disease found in 37% of cases. The average left ventricular ejection fraction was 43.5 ± 17.7%. A slight predominance of primary prevention was noted in our series (52%). Single, dual and triple chamber ICD were used in respectively 34%, 36% and 30% of cases. The use of triple chamber ICD was more frequent in cardiomyopathies and ischemic heart disease. Early complications were observed in 9 patients (10%). No deaths directly related to the ICD implantation procedure was observed in our series. The mean follow-up was 39.7 months (3-136). We recorded 14 deaths. The main cause of death was refractory heart failure. During follow-up, 16 patients (18%) received appropriate ICD shocks. The only predictor of appropriate therapies was the indication of ICD for secondary prevention (p=0,002). Twenty one patients (23%) had complications inherent to the implantation of ICD. The main complication was inappropriate shocks found in 11 patients (12%). The main cause of these shocks was supraventricular arrhythmias 68%). Ischemic heart disease (p = 0.001) and secondary prevention (p = 0.048) were significantly associated with the occurrence of inappropriate ICD shocks. The ICD was explanted after varying delays in 4 patients (4.4%).The results of our study were comparable to major ICD studies and registries particularly in terms of procedural, late complications and the occurrence of appropriate ICD therapies.

Left main coronary artery disease is found in 4-6% of patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography. Coronary artery bypass graft is the gold standard. However, percutaneous coronary intervention is a continuously evolving substitution for surgery in such patients.We report a retrospective study of 32 patients with relevant left main coronary artery disease treated by angioplasty in our faculty, between January 2005 and March 2011.The mean age of the population on the study was 59.7±10.9 years. The sex-ratio was 3.57. The rate of angiographic success was 97%. The in-hospital stay was uneventful in 94%¨of our patients. Only one patient died of cardiogenic shock complicating an acute anterior myocardial infarction. After a mean follow up of 18.5 ± 15.4 months, the in-stent restenosis rate was 16.12%. The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was 29%. Independent predictive factors of MACE were: cardiogenic shock on admission (p=0.022), emergency procedures (p=0.033), Euroscore6 (p=0.001), Parsonnet score20 (p=0.036), High C réactive protein levels on admission (p=0.007),le taux de créatinine (p=0.008), un diamètre de référence du TCCG3.5 mm (p =0.036) et l'utilisation de stents (p=0.036) and the use of bare metal stents (p=0.036). Independent predictive factors of in-stent restenosis were: use of bare metal stents (p=0.004) and Paclitaxel drug eluting stents (p=0.037).Percutaneous coronary intervention is safe and a validated alternative to coronary artery bypass graft for left main coronary artery disease. However, it should be reserved to selected patients and limited to experienced centers.