Long-term effectiveness and safety of triple versus dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare the long-term effectiveness and safety of triple antiplatelet therapy (TAPT) versus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary artery disease (uLMCAD).

BACKGROUND

An additional strategy to reduce recurrent ischemia after PCI for uLMCAD is needed to improve the long-term clinical outcomes and match the efficacy of bypass surgery.

METHODS

We evaluated 245 patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents for uLMCA stenosis of at least 50% from the Sejong General Institute PCI database between April 2003 and December 2010. TAPT was defined as the addition of cilostazol for at least 3 months to conventional DAPT after PCI.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients received TAPT and 121 patients received DAPT. The TAPT group had a higher number of male patients, need for the two-stent technique, and Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) scores and longer stent length compared with the DAPT group. During a median 30.6 months, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) occurred in 43 patients (17.6%): 23 (18.5%) in the TAPT group and 20 (16.5%) in the DAPT group (P=0.68). In the multivariate analysis, TAPT was not associated with a lower incidence of MACCE (hazard ratio: 0.69, 95% confidence interval: 0.34-1.43). Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major and minor bleeding occurred at similar rates (5.6 vs. 3.3%, P=0.565, for TIMI major bleeding; and 14.5 vs. 14.9%, P=0.718, for TIMI minor bleeding).

CONCLUSION

TAPT after drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with uLMCAD did not improve the long-term clinical outcome when compared with conventional DAPT, although it was a safe strategy.