Aorto-Ostial and Branch Ostial Lesions and Unprotected Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

Published on 21/06/2015 by admin

Filed under Cardiovascular

Last modified 22/04/2025

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 3090 times

11 Aorto-Ostial and Branch Ostial Lesions and Unprotected Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Interventions image

Narrowing of the aorto-ostium involving native coronary arteries or bypass grafts is associated with more complicated techniques and worse long-term outcomes. The tensile strength of the aortic wall and disease of the native or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) conduit may fail using standard balloon/stent methods. Because of the location, guiding catheter support may not be secure. Balloon inflations in coronary ostial location have the potential for aortic dissection, especially during right coronary artery (RCA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or for dissection of the left main (LM) artery from dilation in the ostium of the circumflex (LCX) or left anterior descending (LAD) arteries. Ostial lesions may be best managed by rotablation or a scoring balloon, followed by balloon angioplasty and stenting.

Techniques for Ostial PCI

Balloon Catheter Placement

Balloon angioplasty requires seating such that, during inflation, the balloon will not be ejected from, nor compressed forward past (“watermelon seed”), the coronary ostia (Fig. 11-1). Removal of the guide catheter into the aorta immediately before balloon inflation will permit the balloon to be inflated partly in the coronary ostium and the aorta and outside the guide catheter. The lesion will be appropriately spanned by the two ends of the balloon inflating at equal pressure. Inflation in the guide may result in failure of the distal end of the balloon to inflate properly. Stenting the ostial lesion may produce strut “hangout” into the main vessel, a common complication of ostial branch stenting, especially when angiographic angles do not allow good visualization of the takeoff. An anchor wire technique may obviate this problem.

Figure 11-2 demonstrates good techniques for RCA ostial stenting. Recovering access to the main vessel after ostial stenting can be difficult depending on the angle of the ostium origin and the amount of stent. It may be helpful to leave the stent balloon catheter in place and advance the guide catheter over the balloon to minimize damage or disfiguration of the recently implanted stent.

The Back-Stop Technique

A strategy to prevent strut hangout uses a main vessel balloon inflated at low pressure (balloon:artery ratio 0.7:1), placed prior to branch stent deployment (Fig. 11-3). By pulling the ostial stent back against the inflated balloon and then deploying the stent, one prevents significant strut hangout into the main vessel.

For moderately or severely calcified lesions, rotational atherectomy is the technique of choice, followed by stenting.

Ostial or Very Proximal LAD Stenosis PCI

A complication of a very proximal or ostial LAD stenosis often involves the left main (LM) segment and can be life-threatening, especially if it involves the distal left main or LCX ostium. Balloon dilatation and stenting in part of the LM coronary artery segment may be unavoidable. As the circumflex branch is often diseased in patients with an ostial LAD stenosis, the potential for side-branch closure and the need for bifurcation technique should be carefully considered in advance.

Based on the historical incidence of LM dissection and the potential for abrupt vessel closure, stent placement (with or without preceding Rotablator) has superseded routine balloon angioplasty for ostial LAD lesions. However, even in the drug-eluting stent era, ostial LAD artery stenting still has a higher restenosis rate than non-ostial locations (> 15%). Key points for ostial lesion stenting are shown in Table 11-1.

Table 11-1 Techniques for Ostial Lesion PCI

PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.

The Szabo Technique for Precise Ostial Stent Placement

Precise localization of the edges of the ostium of any coronary artery or branch is among the most challenging of all angiographic image interpretations. Due to the limitations of angiographic imaging, there is commonly unavoidable stent overlap either too far inside or outside the ostium. Stents placed outside the true ostium may obstruct later catheter engagement, whereas stents inserted too deeply may miss the proximal edge of the lesion, resulting in a need for another stent or later restenosis.

In 2005, a technique to accurately place the stent and anchor it from advancing beyond the ostium of a lesion using a second angioplasty guidewire positioned in the aorta or opposing branch was reported. The technique using the most proximal end of a second guidewire passing it through the last cell of the stent inhibiting advancement and anchoring the stent position was first described in an abstract at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics conference by Szabo et al., but never brought forward into full publication. Our lab, and later others, described several cases for anchoring both the distal and proximal portions of the stent with the Szabo wire technique. The Szabo technique for aorto-ostial lesions (Fig. 11-4) and for bifurcation ostial lesions is described below:

While now in use for several years, there are several safety factors related to the use of the anchor wire method that should be considered:

Other methods to assist in the exact ostial stent placement, such as metal spring feet on the end of the guide catheter (Ostial Pro), are emerging but the Szabo anchor wire technique appears to be an easy and cost-effective method for precise ostial lesion stenting.

Left Main PCI

The current and principal recommended management of significant atherosclerotic disease involving the LM is CABG surgery. However, bypass surgery is not innocuous and is associated with considerable morbidity. For PCI, there is a distinction between protected (i.e., previously bypassed LM) and unprotected LM (i.e., de novo or native) disease. Protected LM patients are at lower risk for PCI. PCI for unprotected LM disease needs to balance the alternative of CABG in the particular high-risk patient under consideration for intervention.

Use of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) graft for CABG is highly beneficial and quite durable. However, CABG surgery for unprotected LM disease, in addition to using the LIMA, necessitates the use of alternative grafts for the remaining arteries (e.g., saphenous vein graft [SVG] or free radial artery). In fact, the SVG is the most frequently implanted surgical graft with patency rates nowhere near those of LIMA grafts. The combination of poor patency rates associated with the SVG along with progression of native coronary vessel disease has been documented in patients undergoing bypass surgery.

Results of PCI in treating unprotected LM disease differ depending on LM lesion location. LM lesions localized to the ostium or middle shaft are not as technically difficult to treat as distal LM disease, which often necessitates bifurcation stenting techniques. One study of 147 consecutive patients undergoing PCI of ostial or middle-shaft LM lesions using sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents found cardiac mortality was 2.7% and target vessel revascularization (TVR) rate was 4.7% at the 3-year follow-up.

The results differ when treating predominantly distal LM bifurcation disease. The Scripps Clinic experience with unprotected LM disease included 50 patients with distal bifurcation disease, most (94%) treated with sirolimus-eluting stents. Multiple stents were used in 84% of the patients. Cardiac mortality was 2% and TVR rate was 14% (ischemia- or symptom-driven revascularization) at the 9-month follow-up. The TVR rates increase with technically challenging coronary anatomy. Bifurcation lesions often require double stenting, with less favorable long-term outcomes.

Anatomic factors that have been associated with worse outcomes include:

Despite more complicated LM coronary anatomy, the mortality rate associated with PCI of unprotected LM disease is comparable to CABG surgery. A meta-analysis of 17 published studies undergoing PCI for unprotected LM disease showed a mortality of 5.5% and TVR of 6.5% at 10 months. Selecting and treating those patients with optimal LM anatomy can potentially reduce high repeat revascularization rates.

Several studies have compared PCI and CABG surgery in terms of mortality and revascularization rates. The LEMANS trial showed a mortality benefit of PCI when compared to CABG (0.5 ± 0.8% vs. 3.3 ± 6.7%; P = 0.047 at 12 months). The SYNTAX trial showed a benefit of CABG surgery over PCI in patients with three-vessel and LM disease with respect to a combined primary end point (12.4% vs. 17.8%; P = 0.002 for MACCE at 12 months). However, a higher repeat revascularization rate in the PCI arm (13.5% vs. 5.9%; P < 0.001) predominately accounted for the difference. There was no difference in mortality between the two groups. The secondary outcomes of the SYNTAX trial also showed that the stroke rate was higher in the CABG group compared to PCI (2.2% vs. 0.6%; P = 0.003 at 12 months).

CABG surgery is often considered the conservative approach in patients with LM disease; however, given the surgical morbidity, a percutaneous management strategy for selected high-risk patients with LM disease will continue to be necessary and will evolve as techniques and tools improve.

Suggested Readings

Alexander J.H., Hafley G., Harrington R.A. Efficacy and safety of edifoligide, an E2F transcription factor decoy, for prevention of vein graft failure following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA. 2005;294:2446–2454.

Applegate R.J., Davis J.M., Leonard J.C. Treatment of ostial lesions using the Szabo technique: a case series. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72:823–828.

Biondi-Zoccai G.G., Lotrionte M., Moretti C., et al. A collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis on 1278 patients undergoing PCI for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Am Heart J. 2007;155:274–283.

Buszman P.E., Kiesz S.R., Bochenek A. Acute and late outcomes of unprotected left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:538–545.

Chieffo A., Park S.J., Valgimigli M. Favorable long-term outcome after drug-eluting stent implantation in nonbifurcation lesions that involve unprotected left main artery: a multicenter registry. Circulation. 2007;116:158–162.

Gutiérrez-Chico J., Villanueva-Benito I., Villanueva- Montoto L., et al. Szabo technique versus conventional angiographic placement in bifurcations 010-001 of Medina and in aorto-ostial stenting: angiographic and procedural results. EuroIntervention. 2010;5:801–808.

Hamada Y., Kawachi K., Yamamoto T., et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass grafting on native coronary artery stenosis: comparison of internal thoracic artery and saphenous vein grafts. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;42:159–164.

Karthikeyan G. Why is disease progression more rapid in the proximal segments of grafted coronary arteries? Int J Cardiol. 2008;125:431–432.

Kern M.J., Ouellette D., Frianeza T. A new technique to anchor stents for exact placement in ostial stenoses: the stent tail wire or Szabo technique. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68:901–906.

Khot U.N., Friedman D.T., Pettersson G., et al. Radial artery bypass grafts have an increased occurrence of angiographically severe stenosis and occlusion compared with left LIMA and SVGs. Circulation. 2004;109:2086–2089.

Lee M.S., Jamal F., Kedia G., et al. Comparison of bypass surgery with drug-eluting stents for diabetic patients with multivessel disease. Int J Cardiol. 2007;123:34–42.

Lo H., Kern M.J. Use of a branch wire to anchor stents for exact placement proximal to bifurcation stents: the reverse Szabo technique. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;67:904–907.

Lopes R.D., Hafley G.E., Allen K.B., et al. Endoscopic versus open vein-graft harvesting in coronary artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(3):235–244.

Price M.J., Cristea E., Sawhney N., et al. Serial angiographic follow-up of sirolimus-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:871–877.

Sabik J.F.III, Lytle B.W., Blackstone E.H., et al. Comparison of saphenous vein and internal thoracic artery graft patency by coronary system. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:544–551.

Serruys P.W., Morice M.C., Kappetein A.P., et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:961–972.

Szabo S., Abramowitz B., Vaitkus P.T. New technique for aorto-ostial stent placement [Abstr]. Am J Cardiol. 2005;96:212H.

Tabata M., Grab J.D., Khalpey Z., et al. Prevalence and variability of internal mammary artery graft use in contemporary multivessel coronary artery bypass graft surgery: analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Database. Circulation. 2009;120(11):935–940.

Teirstein P.S. Percutaneous revascularization is the preferred strategy for patients with significant left main coronary stenosis. Circulation. 2009;119:1021–1033.