Routine versus selective coronary artery bypass for left main coronary artery revascularization: The appraise a customized strategy for left main revascularization (CUSTOMIZE) study

BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the first choice of revascularization in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. We tested the hypothesis that a non guideline-driven approach to ULMCA revascularization which uses percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by default and CABG in selected patients may be as safe as the traditional guideline-driven approach.MethodsBetween March 2002 and December 2008, PCI has been used as a default strategy for ULMCA revascularization in Center 1 (non guideline-driven [NGD] group), whereas CABG has been used as a default strategy in Center 2 (guideline-driven [GD] group).ResultsA total of 838 patients with ULMCA disease were included. Of these 67.1% and 32.9% were treated in the NGD and GD groups, respectively. A significant higher risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10–2.33, p = 0.014) and target vessel revascularization (HR 2.44, 95% CI 1.26–4.72, p = 0.008) occurred at 24 months in the NGD group as compared with GD Group. Adjustment by means of propensity score did not result in substantial changes with regard to the subcomponent safety and efficacy endpoints. Conversely, the composite of MACE was no longer significant according to all types of statistical adjustment.ConclusionsIn a large registry of patients with ULMCA disease undergoing revascularization in current clinical practice, an approach based on PCI and the selective use of CABG gives results which are not inferior to those of a traditional approach guided by the current guidelines.