Study of Unprotected Left Main Stenting Versus Bypass Surgery (LE MANS Study)
|First Submitted Date ICMJE||September 11, 2006|
|First Posted Date ICMJE||September 12, 2006|
|Last Update Posted Date||September 12, 2006|
|Start Date ICMJE||January 2001|
|Primary Completion Date||Not Provided|
|Current Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE
|Original Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE||Same as current|
|Change History||No Changes Posted|
|Current Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE
|Original Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE||Same as current|
|Current Other Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Original Other Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Brief Title ICMJE||Study of Unprotected Left Main Stenting Versus Bypass Surgery (LE MANS Study)|
|Official Title ICMJE||Prospective Randomized Study of Unprotected Left Main Stenting Versus Bypass Surgery|
|Brief 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. The purpose of the study is to compare the short and long term results of unprotected left main stenting with coronary artery bypass surgery.|
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 Type ICMJE||Interventional|
|Study Phase||Phase 4|
|Study Design ICMJE||Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
|Study Arms||Not Provided|
* Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
|Recruitment Status ICMJE||Completed|
|Estimated Completion Date||December 2005|
|Primary Completion Date||Not Provided|
|Eligibility Criteria ICMJE||
|Ages||18 Years to 80 Years (Adult, Senior)|
|Accepts Healthy Volunteers||No|
|Contacts ICMJE||Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects|
|Listed Location Countries ICMJE||Poland, United States|
|Removed Location Countries|
|NCT Number ICMJE||NCT00375063|
|Other Study ID Numbers ICMJE||6 P05B 132 21|
|Has Data Monitoring Committee||Not Provided|
|U.S. FDA-regulated Product||Not Provided|
|IPD Sharing Statement||Not Provided|
|Responsible Party||Not Provided|
|Study Sponsor ICMJE||Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Poland|
|Collaborators ICMJE||Not Provided|
|PRS Account||Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Poland|
|Verification Date||September 2006|
ICMJE Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP