Coronary Artery StenosisPhase 4NCT00375063
Study of Unprotected Left Main Stenting Versus Bypass Surgery (LE MANS Study)
A Phase 4 study testing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in people with Coronary Artery Stenosis and Myocardial Revascularization, run by Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Poland at 5 sites in 2 countries.
Trial summary
Unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenting, offering restoration of a native flow to left coronary artery, is the subject of intense investigations as a potential alternative to bypass surgery. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Coronary Artery Stenosis, Myocardial Revascularization, Myocardial Ischemia
- What is being tested?
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 130 participants
- Where
- 5 sitesin 2 countries
- Study dates
- Jan 2001to Dec 2005
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- The patients' age 18 to 80
- Significant LM stenosis (>50%)
- The target vessel reference diameter 2.5mm.
- Concomitant multivessel disease suitable for PCI is allowed.
- The patient is an acceptable candidate for coronary artery bypass surgery.
- The patient agreement for 6 month follow-up cardiac catheterization, which will include left ventricular angiogram.
- The patient written informed consent.
Who cannot join
- An allergy or contraindication to aspirin, ticlopidine or Clopidogrel.
- Presence of diffuse, significant (>++) calcifications in LM
- Left ventricular ejection fraction < 35%
- History of bleeding diathesis or coagulopathy.
- Any previous PCI or CABG surgery
- Acute MI within 48 hours, cardiogenic shock.
Show all 12Show fewer
- Bail-out stenting of dissected LM during complicated PCI.
- The patient suffered a stroke or transient ischemic neurological attack (TIA) within 3 months.
- Chronic renal insufficiency.
- Positive pregnancy test.
- Any disease that may shorten the life expectancy of the patient.
- The patient is currently participating in another research study.
Trial locations and contacts
5 sites in 2 countries.
5 sites in 2 countries
Poland3 sites
Silesian Medical School 1-st Department of Cardiosurgery
Katowice, Silesian Voivodeship, 40-635
Silesian Medical School 3-rd Department of Cardiology, Coronary Care Unit
Katowice, Silesian Voivodeship, 40-635
Jagiellonian University
Krakow, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, 31-147
United States2 sites
Sharpe-Strumia Research Foundation of the Bryn Mawr Hospital, Bryn Mawr, PA, USA and Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia
Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, 19010
San Antonio Endovascular and Heart Institute and University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
San Antonio, Texas, 78248
About this study
Official title: Prospective Randomized Study of Unprotected Left Main Stenting Versus Bypass Surgery
Unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenting, offering restoration of a native flow to left coronary artery, is the subject of intense investigations as a potential alternative to bypass surgery. The purpose of the study is to compare the short and long term results of unprotected left main stenting with coronary artery bypass surgery.
Read the detailed description
The natural history and the results of pharmacological treatment in patients with severe narrowing of left main coronary artery show very poor prognosis (5 year survival less than 50%).
There is general agreement that surgical treatment improves 5 year survival in patients with left main coronary artery obstruction 3, however long term survival rate (15 year follow-up) is low in both groups (37% and 27% respectively in surgical and medical group). Median survival was longer in surgical group in general population (13.3 vs 6.6 years) , but there was no significant difference in patients with normal LV ejection fraction (14.7 vs 15 years).
With the advent of coronary stenting encouraging results were reported by several authors. There was high success rate 98-100% for elective procedures and in these series the mortality (for protected and non-protected left main) ranged from 0 to 3.4 %, and 6 month event free survival rate was 70-80%. Restenosis rate in stented LM varied from 10-22% for proximal LM to 40% for distal LM. Final minimal luminal area >=7mm2 post procedure, assessed by IVUS, predicted low restenosis rate of 7%, while the area below <7mm2 was connected with restenosis of 50%. Our and other experience showed that left main in-stent restenosis can be treated successfully with another percutaneous intervention (including endarterectomy and balloon angioplasty) as well as by surgical revascularization.
Six and 12-month survival rate depended on the LV function. Patients with LVEF>40% had in-hospital event free survival of 98% and 9-month event free survival of 86%, whereas patients with LVEF <40% had in-hospital and 9 month event-free survival of 67 and 22% respectively. Additionally, in patients presented with acute myocardial infarction or bail-out procedures, early and late results of LM stenting were not as good as for elective cases.
Our previously presented promising results of left main stenting is mainly related to proper technique of LM stenting (short inflations within LM, careful guiding catheter manipulation, stent selection), as well as very cautiously designed follow-up (every month visit for first six month, routine coronary angiography within 3-6 months after procedure). This initial experience gives us the backgrounds for a larger prospective randomized trial comparing elective surgical revascularisation and percutaneous intervention in patients with LM coronary artery disease. It is our impression that design and the delivery system of the new generation stent is uniquely suited to safely treat this difficult subset of patients. At the present time we would limit the study to the discrete lesions in proximal (ostial and mid) left main with reference luminal diameter >=3 mm. Based on published results of stenting under IVUS examination for such a lesion we estimate the restenosis rate to be well below 10%. As we expect, the survival and complication rate within one year in both group will be similar. Therefore our main concern is weather both treatment strategies will offer the same prevention of LV function, as well as improvement of functional capacity and coronary reserve in both groups in a period of 2-3 years.
- Being tested
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
- Keywords
- left main stenosis, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
- Medical subject headings
- Coronary Stenosis, Myocardial Ischemia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Percutaneous Coronary InterventionProcedure or surgery
Coronary Artery Bypass GraftingProcedure or surgery
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
LV function assessed by 2D echocardiography
exercise tolerance measured with ECG treadmill stress testing
angina severity according to CCS classification 12 months after the index intervention
Secondary outcomes (5)
30 day and one year major adverse events (MAE)
30 day and one year major acute cardiovascular events (MACE)
length of hospitalization
one year and total survival and freedom from MACE
one year target vessel failure (TVF).
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted12 Sep 2006 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2001
- Study completionDec 2005
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Coronary Artery StenosisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 130 participants
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Poland
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Investigators
- Pawel E Buszman, Prof, Principal investigator, Silesian Medical School, PolandStefan R Kiesz, Prof, Principal investigator, 2San Antonio Endovascular and Heart Institute and University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Tx, USA,
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00375063
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 6 P05B 132 21
- Status last verified
- Sep 2006
- First submitted
- 11 Sep 2006
- Last updated
- 12 Sep 2006
- Results posted
- No
Publications
Chieffo A, Colombo A. Treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease with drug-eluting stents: is it time for a randomized trial? Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):396-400. doi: 10.1038/ncpcardio0272.
PubMed 16119701Chieffo A, Stankovic G, Bonizzoni E, Tsagalou E, Iakovou I, Montorfano M, Airoldi F, Michev I, Sangiorgi MG, Carlino M, Vitrella G, Colombo A. Early and mid-term results of drug-eluting stent implantation in unprotected left main. Circulation. 2005 Feb 15;111(6):791-5. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000155256.88940.F8. Epub 2005 Feb 7.
PubMed 15699254Park SJ, Kim YH, Lee BK, Lee SW, Lee CW, Hong MK, Kim JJ, Mintz GS, Park SW. Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: comparison with bare metal stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Feb 1;45(3):351-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.039.
PubMed 15680711Valgimigli M, van Mieghem CA, Ong AT, Aoki J, Granillo GA, McFadden EP, Kappetein AP, de Feyter PJ, Smits PC, Regar E, Van der Giessen WJ, Sianos G, de Jaegere P, Van Domburg RT, Serruys PW. Short- and long-term clinical outcome after drug-eluting stent implantation for the percutaneous treatment of left main coronary artery disease: insights from the Rapamycin-Eluting and Taxus Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital registries (RESEARCH and T-SEARCH). Circulation. 2005 Mar 22;111(11):1383-9. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000158486.20865.8B.
PubMed 15781749Peszek-Przybyla E, Buszman P, Bialkowska B, Zurakowski L, Banasiewicz-Szkrobka I, Debinski M, Tendera M. Stent implantation for the unprotected left main coronary artery. The long-term outcome of 62 patients. Kardiol Pol. 2006 Jan;64(1):1-6; discussion 7.
PubMed 16444619Buszman PE, Kiesz SR, Bochenek A, Peszek-Przybyla E, Szkrobka I, Debinski M, Bialkowska B, Dudek D, Gruszka A, Zurakowski A, Milewski K, Wilczynski M, Rzeszutko L, Buszman P, Szymszal J, Martin JL, Tendera M. Acute and late outcomes of unprotected left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Feb 5;51(5):538-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.09.054.
PubMed 18237682
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Sep 2006. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Prospective Randomized Study of Unprotected Left Main Stenting Versus Bypass Surgery
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00375063
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 6 P05B 132 21
- Keywords
- left main stenosis, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 130 participants
- Lead sponsor
- Ministry of Science and Higher Education, PolandOther government
- Study start
- Jan 2001
- Study completion
- Dec 2005
- First posted
- 12 Sep 2006 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenting, offering restoration of a native flow to left coronary artery, is the subject of intense investigations as a potential alternative to bypass surgery. The purpose of the study is to compare the short and long term results of unprotected left main stenting with coronary artery bypass surgery.
Detailed description
The natural history and the results of pharmacological treatment in patients with severe narrowing of left main coronary artery show very poor prognosis (5 year survival less than 50%).
There is general agreement that surgical treatment improves 5 year survival in patients with left main coronary artery obstruction 3, however long term survival rate (15 year follow-up) is low in both groups (37% and 27% respectively in surgical and medical group). Median survival was longer in surgical group in general population (13.3 vs 6.6 years) , but there was no significant difference in patients with normal LV ejection fraction (14.7 vs 15 years).
With the advent of coronary stenting encouraging results were reported by several authors. There was high success rate 98-100% for elective procedures and in these series the mortality (for protected and non-protected left main) ranged from 0 to 3.4 %, and 6 month event free survival rate was 70-80%. Restenosis rate in stented LM varied from 10-22% for proximal LM to 40% for distal LM. Final minimal luminal area >=7mm2 post procedure, assessed by IVUS, predicted low restenosis rate of 7%, while the area below <7mm2 was connected with restenosis of 50%. Our and other experience showed that left main in-stent restenosis can be treated successfully with another percutaneous intervention (including endarterectomy and balloon angioplasty) as well as by surgical revascularization.
Six and 12-month survival rate depended on the LV function. Patients with LVEF>40% had in-hospital event free survival of 98% and 9-month event free survival of 86%, whereas patients with LVEF <40% had in-hospital and 9 month event-free survival of 67 and 22% respectively. Additionally, in patients presented with acute myocardial infarction or bail-out procedures, early and late results of LM stenting were not as good as for elective cases.
Our previously presented promising results of left main stenting is mainly related to proper technique of LM stenting (short inflations within LM, careful guiding catheter manipulation, stent selection), as well as very cautiously designed follow-up (every month visit for first six month, routine coronary angiography within 3-6 months after procedure). This initial experience gives us the backgrounds for a larger prospective randomized trial comparing elective surgical revascularisation and percutaneous intervention in patients with LM coronary artery disease. It is our impression that design and the delivery system of the new generation stent is uniquely suited to safely treat this difficult subset of patients. At the present time we would limit the study to the discrete lesions in proximal (ostial and mid) left main with reference luminal diameter >=3 mm. Based on published results of stenting under IVUS examination for such a lesion we estimate the restenosis rate to be well below 10%. As we expect, the survival and complication rate within one year in both group will be similar. Therefore our main concern is weather both treatment strategies will offer the same prevention of LV function, as well as improvement of functional capacity and coronary reserve in both groups in a period of 2-3 years.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (7 listed)
- The patients' age 18 to 80
- Significant LM stenosis (>50%)
- The target vessel reference diameter 2.5mm.
- Concomitant multivessel disease suitable for PCI is allowed.
- The patient is an acceptable candidate for coronary artery bypass surgery.
Key exclusion criteria (12 listed)
- An allergy or contraindication to aspirin, ticlopidine or Clopidogrel.
- Presence of diffuse, significant (>++) calcifications in LM
- Left ventricular ejection fraction < 35%
- History of bleeding diathesis or coagulopathy.
- Any previous PCI or CABG surgery
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Percutaneous Coronary Intervention | Procedure or surgery | – |
| Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting | Procedure or surgery | – |
Primary outcome
LV function assessed by 2D echocardiography
exercise tolerance measured with ECG treadmill stress testing
angina severity according to CCS classification 12 months after the index intervention
5 secondary outcomes
30 day and one year major adverse events (MAE)
30 day and one year major acute cardiovascular events (MACE)
length of hospitalization
one year and total survival and freedom from MACE
one year target vessel failure (TVF).
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 Sep 2006.
- Background: PubMed 16119701Chieffo A, Colombo A. Treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease with drug-eluting stents: is it time for a randomized trial? Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):396-400. doi: 10.1038/ncpcardio0272.
- Background: PubMed 15699254Chieffo A, Stankovic G, Bonizzoni E, Tsagalou E, Iakovou I, Montorfano M, Airoldi F, Michev I, Sangiorgi MG, Carlino M, Vitrella G, Colombo A. Early and mid-term results of drug-eluting stent implantation in unprotected left main. Circulation. 2005 Feb 15;111(6):791-5. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000155256.88940.F8. Epub 2005 Feb 7.
- Background: PubMed 15680711Park SJ, Kim YH, Lee BK, Lee SW, Lee CW, Hong MK, Kim JJ, Mintz GS, Park SW. Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: comparison with bare metal stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Feb 1;45(3):351-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.039.
- Background: PubMed 15781749Valgimigli M, van Mieghem CA, Ong AT, Aoki J, Granillo GA, McFadden EP, Kappetein AP, de Feyter PJ, Smits PC, Regar E, Van der Giessen WJ, Sianos G, de Jaegere P, Van Domburg RT, Serruys PW. Short- and long-term clinical outcome after drug-eluting stent implantation for the percutaneous treatment of left main coronary artery disease: insights from the Rapamycin-Eluting and Taxus Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital registries (RESEARCH and T-SEARCH). Circulation. 2005 Mar 22;111(11):1383-9. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000158486.20865.8B.
- Results publication: PubMed 16444619Peszek-Przybyla E, Buszman P, Bialkowska B, Zurakowski L, Banasiewicz-Szkrobka I, Debinski M, Tendera M. Stent implantation for the unprotected left main coronary artery. The long-term outcome of 62 patients. Kardiol Pol. 2006 Jan;64(1):1-6; discussion 7.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 18237682Buszman PE, Kiesz SR, Bochenek A, Peszek-Przybyla E, Szkrobka I, Debinski M, Bialkowska B, Dudek D, Gruszka A, Zurakowski A, Milewski K, Wilczynski M, Rzeszutko L, Buszman P, Szymszal J, Martin JL, Tendera M. Acute and late outcomes of unprotected left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Feb 5;51(5):538-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.09.054.
Related trials for Coronary Artery Stenosis
Active, not recruiting
Shockwave™ vs Surgical Endarterectomy for Calcified Severe Common Femoral Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Efficacy, Safety and Long-Term Outcomes
Common Femoral Artery Stenosis, Calcification; Heart
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
A Study of Inclisiran to Prevent Cardiovascular Events in High-risk Primary Prevention Patients.
Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease
Recruiting
Positron Emission Tomography to Assess the Effect of Camzyos on Ischaemia in HOCM: PEACH Trial
Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy \(HOCM\), Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Obstruction
RecruitingObservational study
A 10-Minute Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Protocol for Cardiac Disease
Coronary Artery Disease, Myocarditis
Recruiting
Effects of Percutaneous Transluminal Renal Angioplasty of Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis in High-Risk Patients.
Renovascular Hypertension, Renovascular Hypertension With Renal Failure
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Pawel E Buszman, Prof principal investigator
Silesian Medical School, Poland
Stefan R Kiesz, Prof principal investigator
2San Antonio Endovascular and Heart Institute and University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Tx, USA,
5 sites in 2 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in people with Coronary Artery Stenosis and Myocardial Revascularization, run by Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Poland at 5 sites in 2 countries.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 7 inclusion and 12 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Sep 2006. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 5 sites in Poland, United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
LV function assessed by 2D echocardiography. The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00375063, which also lists 6 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Sep 2006.