• I. V. Polivenok
  • M. S. Belimenko
Keywords: coronary heart disease, coronary intervention on left main coronary artery, percutaneous interventions, myocardial revascularization.


Summary. Left main (LM) coronary artery lesions occurring in 4.8-9 % of patients on coronary angiography, represent a serious clinical problem with a quite aggressive revascularization strategy. Despite the growing evidence of the efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) on LM, coronary bypass surgery remains the dominant method of revascularization in many hospitals.

Material and methods. The authors presented short-term results of LM PCI in 66 consecutive patients in one center.

Results. LM PCI accounted for 4.9 % of the total number of percutaneous coronary interventions. 67.2 % of PCI were performed by radial access, two-stent strategies were used in 10.8 %, mechanical circulatory support — in 7.5 %, and intracoronary imaging – in 1.5 % of cases. Hospital mortality was 4.5 %, the complications rate — 13.6 %. There was no significant difference in access, technical aspects of the procedure, the number of complications and mortality rate between elective patients and patients with an acute coronary syndrome.

Conlusion. LM PCI can be performed routinely in experienced coronary programs with acceptable short-term outcomes. Additional efforts are needed from the hospital administrations and professional societies to increase the use of coronary imaging in order to improve the long-term outcomes of LM PCI.


1. Giannoglou GD, Antoniadis AP, Chatzizisis YS, et al. Prevalence of narrowing >or=50% of the left main coronary artery among 17,300 patients having coronary angiography. Am J Cardiol. 2007 Oct 1;100(7):1186.
2. Stone G.W., Moses J.W., Leon M.B. Left main drug-eluting stents: natural progression or a bridge too far. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:498–500.
3. Neumann F-J, Sousa-Uva M, Anders Ahlsson A, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group; 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization, European Heart Journal, Volume 40, Issue 2, 7 January 2019, P. 87–165
4. SWEDEHEART Annual Report 2017. Accessed by 1 Mar 2019.
5. Epstein AJ, Polsky D, Yang F, Yang L, Groeneveld PW. Coronary revascularization trends in the United States, 2001-2008. JAMA. 2011;305(17):1769-76.
6. Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet 2013;381:629–638.
7. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP, et al. Five-year outcomes in patients with left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery trial. Circulation 2014;129:2388–2394.
8. Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, et al. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: A pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet 2018;391:939–948.
9. Capodanno D, Stone GW, Morice MC, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical data. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:1426–1432.
10. Ahn JM, Roh JH, Kim YH, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease: 5-Year outcomes of the PRECOMBAT study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:2198–2206.
11. Cavalcante R, Sotomi Y, Lee CW, et al. Outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery in patients with unprotected left main disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68:999–1009.
12. Giacoppo D, Colleran R, Cassese S, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left main coronary artery stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol 2017;2:1079–1088.
13. De Maria GL, Burzotta F, Trani C, et al. Trends and outcomes of radial approach in left-main bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention in the drug-eluting stent era: a two-center registry. J Invasive Cardiol. 2015;27:E125-136
14. Lassen JF, Holm NR, Adrian Banning A, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation disease: 11th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention 2016;12:38-46.
15. Sawaya FJ, Lefèvre T, Chevalier B, et al. Contemporary Approach to Coronary Bifurcation Lesion Treatment. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2016;9(18):1861-78.
16. Katritsis DG, Siontis GC, Ioannidis JP. Double versus single stenting for coronary bifurcation lesions: a meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:409–15.
17. Hildick-Smith D, Behan MW, Lassen JF et al. The EBC TWO Study (European Bifurcation Coronary TWO): A Randomized Comparison of Provisional T-Stenting Versus a Systematic 2 Stent Culotte Strategy in Large Caliber True Bifurcations. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Sep;9(9)
18. Chieffo A, Hildick-Smith D. The European Bifurcation Club Left Main Study (EBC MAIN): rationale and design of an international, multicentre, randomised comparison of two stent strategies for the treatment of left main coronary bifurcation disease. EuroIntervention 2016 May 17;12(1):47-52.
19. Rahman S, Leesar T, Cilingiroglu M, et al. Impact of kissing balloon inflation on the main vessel stent volume, area, and symmetry after side-branch dilation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions: a serial volumetric intravascular ultrasound study. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2013;6:923–31.
20. Sgueglia GA, Chevalier B. Kissing balloon inflation in percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2012;5:803–11.
21. Murasato Y, Finet G, Foin N. Final kissing balloon inflation: the whole story. EuroIntervention 2015;11 Suppl V:V81–5.
22. Niemela M, Kervinen K, Erglis A, et al. Randomized comparison of final kissing balloon dilation versus no final kissing balloon dilation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions treated with main vessel stenting: the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study III. Circulation 2011;123:79–86.
23. Song YB, Park TK, Hahn JY, et al. Optimal strategy for provisional side branch intervention in coronary bifurcation lesions: 3-year outcomes of the SMART-STRATEGY Randomized Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2016;9:517–26.
24. Park SJ, Kim YH, Park DW, et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on long-term mortality in stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:167–77.
25. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic Balloon Pump in cardiogenic shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) Trial Investigators. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): Final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 2013;382:1638–1645.
How to Cite