==== Front Eur J Med Res Eur J Med Res European Journal of Medical Research 0949-2321 2047-783X BioMed Central London 1189 10.1186/s40001-023-01189-1 Research Percutaneous coronary intervention vs. coronary artery bypass grafting in emergency and non-emergency unprotected left-main revascularization Daoulah Amin amindaoulah@yahoo.com 1 Alqahtani Abdulrahman H. 2 Elmahrouk Ahmed 13 Yousif Nooraldaem 4 Almahmeed Wael 5 Arafat Amr A. 36 Al Garni Turki 6 Qutub Mohammed A. 7 Dahdouh Ziad 8 Alshehri Mohammed 9 Hersi Ahmad S. 10 Malak Majed M. 11 Djunaedi Syifa R. 12 Zaidi Ayesha 12 Naser Maryam Jameel 13 Qenawi Wael 9 Elganady Abdelmaksoud 1415 Hassan Taher 16 Ball Vincent 17 Elmahrouk Youssef 18 Hussien Adnan Fathey 19 Alzahrani Badr 6 Abuelatta Reda 20 Selim Ehab 21 Jamjoom Ahmed 1 Alshali Khalid Z. 22 Hashmani Shahrukh 5 Refaat Wael 23 Kazim Hameedullah M. 21 Ghani Mohamed Ajaz 20 Amin Haitham 4 Ibrahim Ahmed M. 24 Abohasan Abdulwali 25 Alama Mohamed N. 7 Balghith Mohammed 26 Abdulhabeeb Ibrahim A. M. 27 Ahmad Osama 8 Ramadan Mohamed 23 Ghonim Ahmed A. 7 Shawky Abeer M. 1415 Noor Husam A. 4 Alqahtani Abdulrahman M. 28 Al Samadi Faisal 28 Abualnaja Seraj 19 Baqais Rasha Taha 29 Alhassoun Abdulkarim 30 Altnji Issam 31 Khan Mushira 32 Alasmari Abdulaziz 1 Aljohar Alwaleed 10 Hiremath Niranjan 5 Aithal Jairam 33 Lotfi Amir 34 1 grid.415310.2 0000 0001 2191 4301 Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, P.O. Box: 40047, Jeddah, 21499 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 2 grid.415254.3 0000 0004 1790 7311 Department of Emergency Medicine, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 3 grid.412258.8 0000 0000 9477 7793 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt 4 Department of Cardiology, Mohammed Bin Khalifa Specialist Cardiac Center, Awali, Kingdom of Bahrain 5 grid.517650.0 Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, UAE 6 grid.415989.8 0000 0000 9759 8141 Department of Cardiology, Prince Sultan Cardiac Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 7 grid.412125.1 0000 0001 0619 1117 Cardiology Center of Excellence, Department of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 8 grid.415310.2 0000 0001 2191 4301 Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 9 Department of Cardiology, Prince Khaled Bin Sultan Cardiac Center, Khamis Mushait, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 10 grid.56302.32 0000 0004 1773 5396 Department of Cardiac Sciences, King Fahad Cardiac Center, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 11 grid.412125.1 0000 0001 0619 1117 Department of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Rabigh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 12 grid.281162.e 0000 0004 0433 813X Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School - Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA 01199 USA 13 grid.281162.e 0000 0004 0433 813X Department of Medicine, Baystate Medical Center, 759 Chestnut St, Springfield, MA USA 14 Department of Cardiology, Dr. Erfan and Bagedo General Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 15 grid.411303.4 0000 0001 2155 6022 Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt 16 grid.440245.3 0000 0004 0607 9610 Department of Cardiology, Bugshan General Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 17 grid.239578.2 0000 0001 0675 4725 Department of Emergency Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH USA 18 grid.412258.8 0000 0000 9477 7793 Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt 19 grid.517809.2 0000 0004 0627 5910 Department of Cardiology, International Medical Center, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 20 Department of Cardiology, Madinah Cardiac Center, Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 21 grid.413494.f 0000 0004 0490 2749 Department of Cardiology, Alhada Armed Forces Hospital, Taif, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 22 grid.412125.1 0000 0001 0619 1117 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 23 grid.415989.8 0000 0000 9759 8141 Department of Cardiology, Prince Sultan Cardiac Center, Al Hassa, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 24 Department of Cardiology, Saudi German Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 25 grid.415989.8 0000 0000 9759 8141 Department of Cardiology, Prince Sultan Cardiac Center, Qassim, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 26 grid.412149.b 0000 0004 0608 0662 King Abdulaziz Cardiac Center, College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Science, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 27 Department of Cardiology, King Abdulaziz Specialist Hospital, Al Jawf, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 28 grid.415277.2 0000 0004 0593 1832 Department of Cardiology, King Fahad Medical City, King Salman Heart Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 29 grid.415271.4 0000 0004 0573 8987 Department of Cardiac Surgery, King Fahd Armed Forces Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 30 grid.415310.2 0000 0001 2191 4301 Department of Anesthesia, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 31 grid.417310.0 0000 0004 0617 7384 Department of Cardiology, Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, Ireland 32 Al Faisal University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 33 Department of Cardiology, Yas Clinic, Khalifa City A, UAE 34 grid.281162.e 0000 0004 0433 813X Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School - Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA 01199 USA 1 7 2023 1 7 2023 2023 28 2106 4 2023 22 6 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Background The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease in the emergency setting is still controversial. Thus, we aimed to compare the outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with and without emergent LMCA disease. Methods This retrospective cohort study included 2138 patients recruited from 14 centers between 2015 and 2019. We compared patients with emergent LMCA revascularization who underwent PCI (n = 264) to patients who underwent CABG (n = 196) and patients with non-emergent LMCA revascularization with PCI (n = 958) to those who underwent CABG (n = 720). The study outcomes were in-hospital and follow-up all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Results Emergency PCI patients were older and had a significantly higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease, lower ejection fraction, and higher EuroSCORE than CABG patients. CABG patients had significantly higher SYNTAX scores, multivessel disease, and ostial lesions. In patients presenting with arrest, PCI had significantly lower MACCE (P = 0.017) and in-hospital mortality (P = 0.016) than CABG. In non-emergent revascularization, PCI was associated with lower MACCE in patients with low (P = 0.015) and intermediate (P < 0.001) EuroSCORE. PCI was associated with lower MACCE in patients with low (P = 0.002) and intermediate (P = 0.008) SYNTAX scores. In non-emergent revascularization, PCI was associated with reduced hospital mortality in patients with intermediate (P = 0.001) and high (P = 0.002) EuroSCORE compared to CABG. PCI was associated with lower hospital mortality in patients with low (P = 0.031) and intermediate (P = 0.001) SYNTAX scores. At a median follow-up time of 20 months (IQR: 10–37), emergency PCI had lower MACCE compared to CABG [HR: 0.30 (95% CI 0.14–0.66), P < 0.003], with no significant difference in all-cause mortality between emergency PCI and CABG [HR: 1.18 (95% CI 0.23–6.08), P = 0.845]. Conclusions PCI could be advantageous over CABG in revascularizing LMCA disease in emergencies. PCI could be preferred for revascularization of non-emergent LMCA in patients with intermediate EuroSCORE and low and intermediate SYNTAX scores. Keywords Emergency PCI Emergency CABG ULMCA Outcomes Gulf issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023 ==== Body pmcBackground Left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease represents a highly morbid condition with a poor prognosis if not revascularized [1]. Furthermore, infarction related to LMCA disease is associated with a high myocardial jeopardy score and extensive ischemia to multiple large coronary territories. It, therefore, carries an increased risk of complications, including left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction, cardiogenic shock, and death [2]. Historically, revascularization with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the gold standard for LMCA disease in stable coronary artery disease (CAD). With current stent technology and guideline-based acute coronary syndrome (ACS) management, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) revascularization for the left-main disease is now considered non-inferior to CABG in patients with stable CAD and low to intermediate SYNTAX scores [2, 3]. Published reports indicated that patients undergoing PCI revascularization for unprotected LMCA disease are increasing, and CABG procedures are decreasing [4]. The number of patients with LMCA disease and high anatomical complexity included in randomized controlled trials is low because they are usually excluded [5]. Consequently, the risk estimates and confidence intervals are imprecise; however, they suggest a trend toward better survival with CABG [3]. There is a paucity of data to guide left-main revascularization in emergency presentations, including cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. The optimal revascularization strategies in emergent and non-emergent LMCA revascularization have not been thoroughly evaluated. Considering this gap in the evidence, we conducted this study to analyze the outcomes of reperfusion strategies (PCI versus CABG) for emergent and non-emergent LMCA disease. Methods Study design, patient population The Gulf left-main registry contains data about LMCA revascularization with either PCI or CABG from 14 cardiac centers in the Gulf Area [6, 7]. Patients were recruited from January 2015 to December 2019. A total of 2657 patients with significant LMCA disease were identified. The registry included 2138 patients with unprotected left-main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease; 460 had emergent, and 1678 had non-emergent revascularization. We compared patients with emergent LMCA disease who had PCI (n = 264) to CABG patients (n = 196) and patients with non-emergent LMCA who had PCI (n = 958) to those who had CABG (n = 720). We excluded patients with previous LMCA PCI (n = 37), Unprotected LMCA treated medically (n = 193), concomitant valvular or aortic surgery (n = 115), and those with protected LMCA disease with patent grafts (n = 174). Definitions The emergent LMCA revascularization group included all ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) cases and high-risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). High-risk NSTE-ACS included patients in cardiac arrest and/or cardiogenic shock. The non-emergent LMCA revascularization group included all remaining patients who underwent LMCA revascularization. Significant LMCA disease was defined as luminal stenosis greater than 50%. Unprotected LMCA disease was defined as LMCA disease without previous bypass grafts to either the left anterior descending (LAD) or circumflex coronary artery. Preprocedural patient risk stratification was performed using the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE II) [8]. The EuroSCORE II is divided into three categories [low score (0–2), medium (3–5) and high (≥ 6)]. The SYNTAX score was used to score the angiographic lesions [9]. The SYNTAX score was divided into three groups [low score (≤ 22), intermediate (23–32), and high (> 33)]. Medina classification was used for LM bifurcation lesions [10]. Bleeding events were defined according to the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) Scientific and Standardization Committee's (SSC) statement [11, 12]. Clinical assessment and clinical follow-up The data pertaining to the patient's demographics, presentation, medications at the time of discharge, and in-patient and follow-up outcomes were analyzed in both emergent and non-emergent LMCA revascularization procedures. Clinical outcomes included hospital and follow-up all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). MACCEs included the composite endpoint of myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular events, target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and cardiac or noncardiac mortality. The mechanism by which follow-up events were recorded was based either on ICD coding diagnosis or on clinical description based on clinical diagnosis by admitting physicians in the electronic health record (EHR). Ethical approval This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center in Riyadh (12-November 2020—RAC # 2201226: Gulf-LM Registry) and was carried out per local guidelines and ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki [13]. The IRB waived informed consent for this study due to its retrospective and observational nature and the absence of any patient-identifying information. Statistical analysis Stata 17 (Stata Corp- College Station- TX- USA) was used for all analyses. Quantitative data were evaluated for normality distribution using the Shapiro‒Wilk test, and normally distributed variables were compared using the Student t-test and presented as the mean and standard deviation. Skewed quantitative data were expressed as the median (interquartile range) and compared with the Wilcoxon test. Qualitative data were expressed as numbers and percentages and compared with the Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test if the expected frequency was less than five. The distribution of time-to-event outcomes (MACCE and survival) was plotted using Kaplan‒Meier curves and compared with the log-rank test. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate factors associated with hospital MACCE and mortality in both emergent and non-emergent LMCA revascularization separately. Data were grouped into four models; baseline data, presentations, EuroSCORE, and SYNTAX score. Univariable logistic regression analysis was performed, and all variables were included in a stepwise forward selection regression model. Significant variables were retained in the final model. The interaction between PCI/CABG and presentation, EuroSCORE, or SYNTAX score was evaluated. The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval, and P-values were reported. Collinearity was tested with the variance inflation factor (VIF), and all variables included in the model had VIF < 1.5. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate factors associated with the time-to-event outcomes (MACCE and survival). Stepwise forward selection was used, and a P < 0.05 was used to retain the variables in the final model. The model contained all patients with emergent and non-emergent LMCA revascularization, and the interaction between emergent/non-emergent revascularization and the technique (PCI vs. CABG) was evaluated in the final model. All preoperative and angiographic variables were included. The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval and P-value were reported. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Preprocedural and procedural technique and lesion characteristics In the emergent LMCA revascularization group, patients who underwent PCI were older and had a significantly higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease than those who underwent CABG. Peripheral arterial disease was more common in patients with non-emergent PCI than non-emergent CABG. The EuroSCORE II was significantly higher in patients with PCI than those with CABG (Table 1).Table 1 Comparison of the baseline demographics between patients who had emergency left main (LM) and non-emergency LM revascularization Overall, n = 2138 Emergent LM revascularization n = 460 (21.5%) P-Value Non-emergent LM revascularization n = 1678 (78.5%) P Value PCI (n = 264) CABG (n = 196) PCI (n = 958) CABG (n = 720) Baseline characteristics  Age (years), median (IQR) 64 (57–70) 63 (56–72) 60 (54- 68) 0.004 66 (60–72) 62 (55–69)  < 0.001  Body mass index (kg/m2), median (IQR) 28 (25- 32) 28 (25–31) 28 (25–30) 0.269 29 (26–33) 28 (25–31)  < 0.001  Gender (male), n (%) 1678 (78.5%) 202 (76.52%) 170 (86.73%) 0.006 692 (7223%) 614 (85.28%)  < 0.001  Smoker, n (%) 849 (39.7%) 85 (32.20%) 83 (42.35%) 0.025 394 (41.13%) 287 (39.86%) 0.601  Diabetes mellitus, n (%) 1468 (68.7%) 185 (70.08%) 139 (70.92%) 0.845 619 (64.61%) 525 (72.92%)  < 0.001  Hypertension, n (%) 1495 (70.4%) 173 (65.78%) 122 (62.24%) 0.434 686 (72.67%) 514 (71.39%) 0.564  Dyslipidemia, n (%) 1463 (69.0%) 179 (68.06%) 125 (63.78%) 0.337 642 (68.15%) 517 (71.81%) 0.108  Congestive heart failure, n (%) 261 (12.2%) 44 (16.67%) 23 (11.73%) 0.138 152 (15.87%) 42 (5.83%)  < 0.001  Peripheral arterial disease, n (%) 246 (11.5%) 28 (10.61%) 20 (10.20%) 0.889 156 (16.28%) 42 (5.83%)  < 0.001  Cerebral vascular accident, n (%) 222 (10.4%) 30 (11.36%) 11 (5.61%) 0.032 149 (15.55%) 32 (4.44%)  < 0.001  Chronic kidney disease, n (%) 437 (20.4%) 62 (23.48%) 29 (14.80%) 0.021 254 (26.51%) 92 (12.78%)  < 0.001  Atrial fibrillation, n (%) 183 (8.6%) 27 (10.23%) 12 (6.12%) 0.118 127 (13.26%) 17 (2.36%)  < 0.001  Previous myocardial infarction, n (%) 613 (28.7%) 84 (31.82%) 60 (30.61%) 0.783 334 (34.86%) 135 (18.75%)  < 0.001  EuroSCORE, median (IQR) 2.9 (1.26–4.56) 3.9 (2.01–7) 2.45 (1.27–5)  < 0.001 1.75 (1.04–3.65) 3.65 (1.6–4.65)  < 0.001 CABG: coronary artery bypass graft surgery, PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention, EuroSCORE score: European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation, IQR: interquartile range Eighteen patients (1%) presented with cardiac arrest (50% ventricular fibrillation), 82 (3.8%) with cardiogenic shock, and 52 (2.4%) with both. Ninety-five percent of cardiac arrests occurred in-hospital, and 95% of cardiogenic shocks occurred pre-revascularization. More patients in cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest had PCI. Three hundred eighty-nine patients (84.6%) presented with STEMI; 81 (21%) were in cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest. Seventy-one (15.4%) patients presented with high-risk (arrest and shock) non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). While more patients with STEMI underwent CABG, more patients presenting with NSTE-ACS underwent PCI. Patients who underwent PCI had significantly lower left ventricular ejection fractions than those who underwent CABG (Table 2). The most frequently observed anatomical pattern was Medina 1,1,1 lesion (35.5%), followed by 1,1,0 (18.8%). Patients who underwent CABG had significantly higher SYNTAX scores, multivessel disease, and ostial lesions. However, PCI patients had significantly lower SYNTAX scores and more isolated LMCA disease or LMCA with either single or double-vessel disease and distal bifurcation lesions (Table 3).Table 2 Comparison of the hospital presentation between patients who had emergency left main (LM) vs. non-emergency LM revascularization Overall, n = 2138 Emergent LM revascularization n = 460 (21.5%) P-Value Non-emergent LM revascularization n = 1678 (78.5%) P Value PCI (n = 264) CABG (n = 196) PCI (n = 958) CABG (n = 720) Hospital presentation  Cardiac arrest, n (%) 18 (1%) 7 (2.65%) 11 (5.61%) 0.105 NA NA NA Types, n (%)  Ventricular fibrillation 9 (50%) 2 (28.57%) 7 (63.64%) 0.335 NA NA NA  Pulseless electrical activity 6 (33.3%) 3 (42.86%) 3 (27.27%) 0.627 NA NA NA  Asystole 3 (16%) 2 (28.57%) 1 (9.09%) 0.528 NA NA NA Location, n (%)  Out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) 1 (5.5%) 1 (14.29%) 0 0.389 NA NA NA  In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) 17 (94.5%) 6 (85.71%) 11 (100%) 0.389 NA NA NA Timing, n (%)  Pre coronary angiography 18 (100%) 7 (100%) 11 (100%)  > 0.99 NA NA NA  Post coronary angiography 0 (0%) 0 0  > 0.99 NA NA NA  Cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest, n (%) 52 (2.4%) 44 (16.67%) 8 (4.08%)  < 0.001 Timing, n (%)  Pre coronary angiography 47 (90.4%) 43 (97.73%) 4 (50%) 0.001 NA NA NA  Post coronary angiography 5 (9.6%) 1 (2.27%) 4 (50%) 0.001 NA NA NA  Cardiogenic shock, n (%) 82 (3.8%) 57 (21.59%) 25 (12.76%) 0.014 NA NA NA Timing, n (%)  Pre coronary angiography 78 (95%) 57 (100%) 21 (84%) 0.007 NA NA NA  Post coronary angiography 4 (5%) 0 4 (16%) 0.007 NA NA NA Coronary presentation, n (%)  ST-elevation myocardial infarction 389 (18.2%) 214 (81.06%) 175 (89.29%) 0.016 NA NA NA  Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome 1084 (50.7%) 50 (18.93%) 21 (10.71%) 0.034 578 (60.33%) 435 (60.41%) 0.868  Stable coronary artery disease 273 (12.77%) NA NA NA 137 (14.32%) 136 (18.89%) 0.012  Silent ischemia/others 380 (17.78%) NA NA NA 234 (24.45%) 146 (20.28%) 0.043  Left ventricular ejection fraction, mean (SD) 44.8 ± 11.6 40 (35–45) 50 (40–55)  < 0.001 45 (35–55) 50 (40–55)  < 0.001  LVEF ≤ 40%, n (%) 578 (27.0%) 98 (37.12%) 33 (16.84%)  < 0.001 291 (30.38%) 156 (21.67%)  < 0.001  LVEF 41–49%, n (%) 618 (28.91%) 101 (38.26%) 48 (24.49%) 0.002 286 (29.85%) 183 (25.42%) 0.045  LVEF ≥ 50%, n (%) 942 (44.1%) 65 (24.62%) 115 (58.67%)  < 0.001 381 (39.77%) 381 (52.92%)  < 0.001  Creatinine clearance (ml/min), mean (SD) 76.2 ± 24.2 90 (62–90) 83 (65–90) 0.016 90 (53–93) 83 (70–90) 0.002  Hemoglobin (g/L), median (IQR) 13.4 (12–14.6) 13.4 (12.2–14.6) 13 (11.5–14.5) 0.012 13.6 (12.3–14.9) 13.2 (11.7–14.3)  < 0.001 SD: standard deviation, CABG: coronary artery bypass graft surgery, PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention,, IQR: interquartile range, LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction Table 3 Comparison of the angiographic and procedural data between patients who had emergency left main (LM) vs. non-emergency LM revascularization Overall, n = 2138 Emergent LM revascularization n = 460 (21.5%) P-Value Non-emergent LM revascularization n = 1678 (78.5%) P Value PCI (n = 264) CABG (n = 196) PCI (n = 958) CABG (n = 720) Angiographic characteristics  Medina classification, n (%)  < 0.001  < 0.001  1,1,1 760 (35.5%) 74 (28.03%) 62 (31.63%) 0.402 356 (37.16%) 268 (37.22%) 0.979  1,0,1 162 (7.6%) 11 (4.17%) 28 (14.29%)  < 0.001 37 (3.86%) 86 (11.94%)  < 0.001  0,1,1 393 (18.4%) 79 (29.92%) 45 (22.96%) 0.096 153 (15.97%) 116 (16.11%) 0.938  1,1,0 402 (18.8%) 60 (22.73%) 11 (5.61%)  < 0.001 250 (26.10%) 81 (11.25%)  < 0.001  1,0,0 202 (9.4%) 20 (7.58%) 23 (11.73%) 0.130 96 (10.02%) 81 (11.25%) 0.417  0,1,0 160 (7.5%) 11 (4.17%) 19 (9.69%) 0.016 45 (4.70%) 85 (11.81%)  < 0.001  0,0,1 59 (2.7%) 9 (3.41%) 8 (4.08%) 0.689 21 (2.19%) 21 (2.92%) 0.347 Lesion characteristics  Isolated left main disease, n (%) 138 (6.5%) 22 (8.3%) 12 (6.1%)  < 0.001 81 (8.5%) 23 (3.2%)  < 0.001  LM + (triple-vessel disease), n (%) 1202 (56.2%) 98 (37.1%) 124 (63.3%)  < 0.001 481 (50.2%) 499 (69.3%)  < 0.001  LM + (LAD and LCx), n (%) 327 (15.3%) 50 (18.9%) 27 (13.8%)  < 0.001 138 (14.4%) 112 (15.6%)  < 0.001  LM + [RCA and (LAD or LCx)], n (%) 139 (6.5%) 20 (7.6%) 25 (12.8%)  < 0.001 44 (4.6%) 50 (6.9%)  < 0.001  LM + LAD, n (%) 287 (13.4%) 63 (23.9%) 8 (4.1%)  < 0.001 188 (19.6%) 28 (3.9%)  < 0.001  LM + LCx, n (%) 35 (1.6%) 10 (3.8%) 0 (0.0%)  < 0.001 20 (2.1%) 5 (0.7%)  < 0.001  LM + RCA, n (%) 10 (0.5%) 1 (0.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0.99 6 (0.6%) 3 (0.4%) 0.740 SYNTAX score  < 0.001  < 0.001  Low (≤ 22), n (%) 430 (20.2%) 81 (30.68%) 18 (9.18%)  < 0.001 223 (23.30%) 108 (15.17%)  < 0.001  Intermediate (23–32), n (%) 1107 (52.0%) 104 (39.39%) 83 (42.35%) 0.524 577 (60.29%) 343 (48.17%)  < 0.001  High (≥ 33), n (%) 592 (27.8%) 79 (29.92%) 95 (48.47%)  < 0.001 157 (16.41%) 261 (36.66%)  < 0.001  SYNTAX score, median (IQR) 28 (24–33) 28 (22–33) 32 (25–37)  < 0.001 28 (23–32) 29 (25–35)  < 0.001 Lesion location  Ostial/shaft only, n (%) 536 (25.1%) 51 (19.32%) 59 (30.10%) 0.007 184 (19.21%) 242 (33.61%)  < 0.001  Distal bifurcation, n (%) 1602 (74.9%) 213 (80.68%) 137 (69.90%) 0.007 774 (80.79%) 478 (66.39%)  < 0.001 Procedure  Intra-aortic ballon pump, n (%) 200 (9.4%) 62 (23.48%) 52 (26.53%) 0.454 36 (3.76%) 50 (6.94%) 0.003  Impella, n (%) 14 (0.7%) 6 (2.27%) 1 (0.51%) 0.247 6 (0.63%) 1 (0.14%) 0.250 CABG: coronary artery bypass graft surgery, PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention, LM: left main, LAD: left anterior descending, LCX: left circumflex, RCA: right coronary, SYNTAX: The SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and cardiac surgery, IQR: interquartile range Procedural technique All PCIs were performed using second-generation DESs (drug-eluting stents). The most common type of stent used was the XIENCE family (Abbott Vascular- Santa Clara, CA, USA) of everolimus-eluting coronary stent systems (65%). The most common PCI approach in emergency LMCA revascularization patients was the planned 2-stent strategy (80%). The most frequently performed type of CABG in emergency LMCA revascularization was conventional CABG (on-pump), accounting for 85% of patients. The left internal mammary artery was used in 98%, double mammary arteries in 5%, and radial conduits in 1% of cases, whereas 99% of patients received venous grafts. Discharge and follow-up medications In emergent LMCA revascularization, patients who underwent PCI were more frequently discharged on P2Y12, beta-blockers, statins, and ACEi/ARBs (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers). No difference was seen in either type of revascularization strategy concerning aspirin (ASA) on discharge (Table 4). A similar pattern was observed at follow-up for P2Y12 inhibitors and ACEi/ARBs. ASA was more common in CABG patients than PCI patients (p = 0.032). No difference was observed between PCI and CABG patients concerning beta-blockers or statin prescriptions at discharge (Table 4).Table 4 Comparison of the medications during discharge and follow-up between patients who had emergency left main (LM) vs. non-emergency LM revascularization Overall, n = 2138 Emergent LM revascularization n = 460 (21.5%) P-Value Non-emergent LM revascularization n = 1678 (78.5%) P Value PCI (n = 264) CABG (n = 196) PCI (n = 958) CABG (n = 720) Discharge medications  ASA, n (%) 2010 (99.10%) 222 (99.55%) 166 (97.65%) 0.095 946 (99.58%) 676 (98.69%) 0.045  P2Y12 inhibitors, n (%) 1833 (90.40%) 223 (100%) 129 (75.88%)  < 0.001 946 (99.58%) 535 (78.10%)  < 0.001  Beta blocker, n (%) 1914 (94.40%) 216 (96.86%) 146 (85.88%)  < 0.001 915 (96.32%) 637 (92.99%) 0.003  Statin, n (%) 1934 (95.40%) 214 (95.96%) 139 (81.76%)  < 0.001 947 (99.68%) 634 (92.55%)  < 0.001  ACE inhibitors or ARB, n (%) 1516 (74.80%) 202 (90.58%) 86 (50.59%)  < 0.001 847 (89.16%) 381 (55.62%)  < 0.001 Medications during follow-up  ASA, n (%) 1713 (97.10%) 174 (96.67%) 135 (100%) 0.032 859 (97.50%) 545 (95.78%) 0.068  P2Y12 inhibitors, n (%) 1129 (64.00%) 140 (77.78%) 83 (61.48%) 0.002 638 (72.42%) 268 (47.10%)  < 0.001  Beta blocker, n (%) 1674 (94.80%) 171 (95.00%) 129 (95.56%) 0.819 838 (95.12%) 536 (94.20%) 0.443  Statin, n (%) 1727 (97.80%) 174 (96.67%) 130 (96.30%) 0.859 873 (99.09%) 550 (96.66%) 0.001  ACE inhibitors or ARB, n (%) 1332 (75.50%) 159 (88.33%) 71 (52.59%)  < 0.001 765 (86.83%) 337 (59.23%)  < 0.001 ASA: aspirin, ACE: angiotensin-converting enzyme, ARB: angiotensin II receptor blocker, CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting, PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention In-hospital events Univariable analysis was used to compare hospital events between PCI and CABG in patients with emergent and non-emergent revascularization. The emergent LMCA revascularization group had higher cardiac mortality (59/460, 12.8%) and total mortality (66/460, 14.35%) without a significant difference between PCI and CABG patients. There was no significant difference between PCI and CABG patients concerning MACCEs. The non-emergent LMCA revascularization group had lower cardiac mortality (22/1678, 1.3%) and total mortality (39/1678, 2.3%). CABG patients reported a higher mortality rate than PCI patients. MACCE and noncardiac mortality were significantly higher in CABG patients than PCI patients. In both the emergent and non-emergent LMCA revascularization groups, hospital stay was significantly longer in CABG patients (Table 5).Table 5 Comparison of the hospital and follow-up events between patients who had emergency left main (LM) and non-emergency LM revascularization Overall, n = 2138 Emergent LM revascularization n = 460 (21.5%) P-Value Non-emergent LM revascularization n = 1678 (78.5%) P Value PCI (n = 264) CABG (n = 196) PCI (n = 958) CABG (n = 720) In-hospital events  Cardiac death, n (%) 81 (3.8%) 36 (13.64%) 23 (11.73%) 0.546 3 (0.31%) 19 (2.64%)  < 0.001  Non-cardiac death, n (%) 24 (1.1%) 4 (1.52%) 3 (1.53%)  > 0.99 3 (0.31%) 14 (1.94%) 0.001  Myocardial infarction, n (%) 73 (3.4%) 15 (5.68%) 20 (10.20%) 0.070 3 (0.31%) 35 (4.86%)  < 0.001  Target lesion revascularization, n (%) 11 (0.5%) 3 (1.14%) 1 (0.51%) 0.640 2 (0.21%) 5 (0.69%) 0.147  Target vessel revascularization, n (%) 15 (0.7%) 5 (1.89%) 0 0.075 2 (0.21%) 8 (1.11%) 0.023  Cerebrovascular events, n (%) 48 (2.2%) 12 (4.55%) 13 (6.63%) 0.329 7 (0.73%) 16 (2.22%) 0.009  MACCE, n (%) 125 (5.8%) 38 (14.39%) 28 (14.29%) 0.974 16 (1.67%) 43 (5.97%)  < 0.001  Congestive heart failure, n (%) 89 (4.2%) 17 (6.44%) 32 (16.33%) 0.001 32 (3.34%) 8 (1.11%) 0.003  Major bleeding, n (%) 313 (14.6%) 39 (14.77%) 34 (17.35%) 0.455 125 (13.06%) 115 (15.97%) 0.092  Minor bleeding, n (%) 157 (7.3%) 17 (6.44%) 18 (9.18%) 0.272 50 (5.22%) 72 (10%)  < 0.001  Total mortality, n (%) 105 (4.9%) 40 (15.15%) 26 (13.27%) 0.568 6 (0.63%) 33 (4.58%)  < 0.001  Duration of hospital stay, median (IQR) (Days) 7 (3–12) 5 (3–9) 13 (9–17)  < 0.001 3 (0–5) 11 (8–15)  < 0.001 Follow-up events  Cardiac death, n (%) 14 (0.7%) 5 (2.59%) 2 (1.23%) 0.889 3 (0.33%) 4 (0.60%) 0.524  Non-cardiac death, n (%) 25 (1.3%) 2 (1.04%) 0 0.237 10 (1.09%) 13 (1.94%) 0.043  Myocardial infarction, n (%) 50 (2.6%) 3 (1.63%) 10 (6.29%) 0.005 21 (2.33%) 16 (2.41%) 0.665  Target lesion revascularization, n (%) 52 (2.72%) 8 (4.35%) 8 (5.03%) 0.371 27 (2.99%) 9 (1.35%) 0.141  Target vessel revascularization, n (%) 57 (2.98%) 4 (2.17%) 8 (5.03%) 0.046 27 (2.99%) 18 (2.71%) 0.936  Cerebrovascular events, n (%) 29 (1.64%) 4 (2.22%) 4 (2.96%) 0.636 11 (1.25%) 10 (1.76%) 0.465  MACCE, n (%) 108 (6.1%) 15 (8.33%) 16 (11.85%) 0.099 48 (5.45%) 29 (5.09%) 0.955  Congestive heart failure, n (%) 415 (19.4%) 83 (31.44%) 24 (12.24%) 0.008 212 (22.13%) 96 (13.33%)  < 0.001  Major bleeding, n (%) 7 (0.4%) 0 0 5 (0.57%) 2 (0.35%) 0.614  Minor bleeding, n (%) 31 (1.76%) 5 (2.78%) 4 (2.96%) 0.685 11 (1.25%) 11 (1.93%) 0.322  Total mortality, n (%) 39 (2.0%) 7 (3.63%) 2 (1.23%) 0.470 13 (1.41%) 17 (2.54%) 0.036  Median follow-up time (IQR) (months) 20 (10–37) 20 (13–31) 12 (3–33) 0.002 21 (12–39) 19 (9–37) 0.009 CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting, IQR: interquartile range, MACCE: major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention Follow-up events The median follow-up time was 20 months (IQR: 10–37 months). Those with emergent LMCA revascularization had a cardiac mortality of 7/460 (1.5%) and a total mortality of 9/460 (1.96%), without a significant difference between PCI and CABG. MACCEs were reported in 31/460 (6.74%) patients, with no significant difference between PCI and CABG. Follow-up myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization were significantly higher in patients who underwent CABG than in those who underwent PCI. Congestive heart failure was significantly higher in PCI patients than in CABG patients. The non-emergent LMCA revascularization patients had a total mortality of 30/1678 (1.79%), noncardiac (1.37%), and cardiac (0.42%). The total mortality was significantly higher in CABG patients than in PCI patients. MACCE was reported in 77/1678 (4.6%) patients, with no significant difference between PCI and CABG (Table 5). Kaplan‒Meier curves showed no significant difference between CABG and PCI patients in emergent LMCA revascularization regarding all-cause mortality and MACCE (Figs. 1A, B). Kaplan‒Meier curves showed significantly higher all-cause mortality in non-emergent LMCA revascularization patients who underwent CABG, with no significant difference in MACCE between CABG and PCI (Figs. 1C, D).Fig. 1 Total mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in patients with emergent and non-emergent left main revascularization (PCI and CABG), at a median follow-up time of 20 months (IQR: 10-372). Total mortality A and C; MACCE B and D; percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (long dash); coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (solid line) Multivariable analysis Several models were constructed to adjust for risk factors for hospital MACCE and mortality in emergent and non-emergent LMCA revascularization. In patients with emergent LMCA revascularization, MACCE was significantly higher in patients with high EuroSCORE, whether they underwent PCI [OR: 5.13 (95% CI 1.98–13.34); P = 0.001] or CABG [OR: 4.35 (95% CI 1.51–12.57); P = 0.007] compared to patients with low EuroSCORE. However, there was no difference in MACCE according to the revascularization technique after adjusting for EuroSCORE [OR: 0.79 (95% CI 0.45–1.38); P = 0.409]. Different revascularization methods did not significantly affect MACCE in different SYNTAX score categories. In patients presenting with arrest, both PCI [7.64 (3.37–17.35); P < 0.001] and CABG [45.81 (11.29- 185.82); P < 0.001] were associated with significantly higher MACCE compared to other presentations. Additionally, PCI had significantly lower MACCE in patients with arrest than CABG [0.46 (0.24- 0.87); P = 0.017] (Table 6).Table 6 Univariable and multivariable analysis for factors associated with hospital MACCE in emergency and non-emergency left main revascularization Hospital MACCE Univariable Multivariable Emergency revascularization OR (95% CI) P OR (95% CI) P Baseline characteristics  Male 1.90 (1.05–3.44) 0.033 – –  Age 1.02 (0.99–1.04) 0.111 – –  Body mass index 0.99 (0.93–1.04) 0.642 – –  Smoking 0.85 (0.49–1.47) 0.561 – –  Diabetes mellitus 0.96 (0.54–1.69) 0.887 – –  Dyslipidemia 1.02 (0.59–1.78) 0.936 – –  Hypertension 1.89 (1.03–3.44) 0.038 – –  Previous myocardial infarction 1.77 (1.04–3.01) 0.037 – –  Chronic kidney disease 3.57 (2.04–6.24)  < 0.001 2.99 (1.62–5.50)  < 0.001  Peripheral arterial disease 3.22 (1.63–6.33) 0.001 2.45 (1.17–5.13) 0.017  Cerebrovascular accident 2.09 (0.97–4.50) 0.059 – –  Congestive heart failure 3.88 (2.13–7.06)  < 0.001 2.67 (1.37–5.19) 0.004  Atrial fibrillation 1.92 (0.85–4.24) 0.109 – –  Ejection fraction category 1.03 (0.74–1.41) 0.874 – –  PCI vs. CABG 1.01 (0.60–1.71) 0.974 – –  EuroSCORE  EuroSCORE 1.08 (1.04–1.10)  < 0.001 2.69 (1.82–3.97)  < 0.001  PCI vs. CABG 1.01 (0.60–1.71) 0.974 0.79 (0.45–1.38) 0.409 Presentation  Arrest 4.72 (2.63–8.50)  < 0.001 2.16 (1.11–4.22) 0.024  Shock 8.73 (4.87–15.64)  < 0.001 8.69 (4.47–16.92)  < 0.001  STEMI 0.26 (0.14–0.67)  < 0.001 – –  NSTEMI 0.24 (0.13–0.44)  < 0.001 – –  PCI vs. CABG 1.01 (0.60–1.71) 0.974 0.46 (0.24–0.87) 0.017 SYNTAX score  SYNTAX score 1.02 (0.99–1.04) 0.158 1.38 (0.95–1.99) 0.091  PCI vs. CABG 1.01 (0.60–1.71) 0.974 1.14 (0.66–1.96) 0.641 Non–emergency revascularization Baseline characteristics  Male 1.20 (0.66–2.19) 0.542 – –  Age 1.01 (0.98–1.03) 0.553 – –  Body mass index 0.97 (0.92–1.02) 0.232 – –  Smoking 0.93 (0.55–1.59) 0.796 – –  Diabetes mellitus 1.16 (0.65–2.05) 0.618 – –  Dyslipidemia 2.79 (1.31–5.93) 0.008 2.36 (1.22–5.57) 0.013  Hypertension 1.68 (0.86–3.27) 0.127 – –  Previous myocardial infarction 1.23 (0.71–2.15) 0.461 – –  Chronic kidney disease 1.33 (0.73–2.42) 0.350 – –  Peripheral arterial disease 1.01 (0.45–2.25) 0.989 – –  Cerebrovascular accident 0.59 (0.21–1.65) 0.317 – –  Congestive heart failure 1.59 (0.79–3.19) 0.192 2.36 (1.10–5.04) 0.027  Atrial fibrillation – – – –  Ejection fraction category 0.80 (0.59–1.08) 0.148 – –  PCI vs. CABG 0.27 (0.15–0.48)  < 0.001 0.30 (0.16–0.56)  < 0.001 EuroSCORE  EuroSCORE 1.06 (1.02–1.12) 0.005 1.07 (1.03–1.11) 0.001  PCI vs. CABG 0.27 (0.15–0.48)  < 0.001 0.25 (0.14–0.45)  < 0.001 Presentation  Arrest – – – –  Shock – – – –  STEMI – – – –  NSTEMI 0.62 (0.35–1.11) 0.107 – –  PCI vs. CABG 0.27 (0.15–0.48)  < 0.001 – – SYNTAX score  SYNTAX score 1.02 (0.99–1.05) 0.117 1.17 (0.79–1.73) 0.444  PCI vs. CABG 0.27 (0.15–0.48)  < 0.001 0.27 (0.15–0.50)  < 0.001 MACCE: major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, CABG: coronary artery bypass graft surgery, PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention, EuroSCORE score: European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation, STEMI: ST–segment elevation myocardial infarction; NSTEMI: non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval In emergent LMCA revascularization, hospital all-cause mortality was significantly higher with PCI [36.78 (4.86–278.48); P < 0.001] and CABG [42.13 (5.35–331.75); P < 0.001] in patients with high EuroSCORE compared to low EuroSCORE. While there was no difference between both approaches after adjusting for EuroSCORE [0.87 (0.49–1.56); P = 0.647]. There was no interaction between PCI/CABG and SYNTAX score categories for their effect on hospital all-cause mortality. Mortality was significantly higher in patients presented with arrest and had CABG [133.09 (28.63- 618.50); P < 0.001] or PCI [4.81 (2.09–11.08); P < 0.001]; however, PCI was associated with lower mortality compared to CABG [0.43 (0.22–0.85); P 0.016] (Table 7).Table 7 Univariable and multivariable analysis for factors associated with hospital mortality in emergency and non-emergency left main revascularization Hospital mortality Univariable Multivariable Emergency revascularization OR (95% CI) P OR (95% CI) P Baseline characteristics  Male 1.90 (1.05–3.45) 0.033 – –  Age 1.04 (1.01–1.06) 0.005 1.04 (1.01–1.07) 0.007  Body mass index 0.95 (0.89–1.01) 0.108 0.93 (0.87–0.99) 0.038  Smoking 0.56 (0.31–1.01) 0.052 – –  Diabetes mellitus 0.88 (0.50–1.54) 0.665 – –  Dyslipidemia 1.43 (0.80–2.55) 0.230 – –  Hypertension 2.54 (1.34–4.82) 0.004 2.91 (1.38–6.16) 0.005  Previous myocardial infarction 1.52 (0.89–2.61) 0.127 – –  Chronic kidney disease 1.81 (1.001–3.36) 0.05 – –  Peripheral arterial disease 1.93 (0.93–4.01) 0.078 – –  Cerebrovascular accident 2.09 (0.97–4.50) 0.059 – –  Congestive heart failure 2.91 (1.58–5.38) 0.001 3.03 (1.50–6.14) 0.002  Atrial fibrillation 1.62 (071–3.69) 0.255 – –  Ejection fraction category 1.43 (1.02–2.00) 0.036 2.68 (1.47–4.89) 0.001  PCI vs. CABG 1.17 (0.69–1.99) 0.568 – – EuroSCORE  EuroSCORE 1.09 (1.06–1.13)  < 0.001 4.45 (2.83–7.01)  < 0.001  PCI vs. CABG 1.17 (0.69–1.99) 0.568 0.87 (0.49–1.56) 0.647 Presentation  Arrest 10.57 (5.84–19.20)  < 0.001 5.40 (2.77–10.56)  < 0.001  Shock 11.53 (6.25–21.27)  < 0.001 9.07 (4.47 (18.42)  < 0.001  STEMI 0.20 (0.11–0.36)  < 0.001 – –  NSTEMI 0.21 (0.12–0.39)  < 0.001 – –  PCI vs. CABG 1.17 (0.69–1.99) 0.568 0.43 (0.22–0.85) 0.016 SYNTAX score  SYNTAX score 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 0.044 1.36 (0.94–1.97) 0.099  PCI vs. CABG 1.17 (0.69–1.99) 0.568 1.31 (0.76–2.28) 0.331 Non–emergency revascularization  Baseline characteristics   Male 0.90 (0.411–1.98) 0.800 – –   Age 1.02 (0.99–1.06) 0.168 1.04 (1.003–1.08) 0.031   Body mass index 0.96 (0.90–1.03) 0.287 – –   Smoking 0.64 (0.32–1.28) 0.209 – –   Diabetes mellitus 1.57 (0.74–3.33) 0.241 – –   Dyslipidemia 3.88 (1.37–10.99) 0.011 3.56 (1.24–10.22) 0.018   Hypertension 1.79 (0.78–4.08) 0.167 – –   Previous myocardial infarction 1.01 (0.50–2.05) 0.973 – –   Chronic kidney disease 2.77 (1.45–5.30) 0.002 3.74 (1.83–7.62)  < 0.001   Peripheral arterial disease 1.37 (0.57–3.31) 0.485 – –   Cerebrovascular accident 0.44 (0.11–1.84) 0.262 – –   Congestive heart failure 2.01 (0.91–4.45) 0.083 – –   Atrial fibrillation 0.57 (0.14–2.39) 0.441 – –   Ejection fraction category 1.07 (0.72–1.57) 0.743 – –   PCI vs. CABG 0.13 (0.05–0.32)  < 0.001 0.100 (0.04–0.25)  < 0.001 EuroSCORE  EuroSCORE 1.12 (1.08–1.17)  < 0.001 1.13 (1.08–1.18)  < 0.001  PCI vs. CABG 0.13 (0.05–0.32)  < 0.001 0.11 (0.04–0.27)  < 0.001 Presentation  Arrest – – – –  Shock – – – –  STEMI – – – –  NSTEMI 0.53 (0.26–1.10) 0.089 – –  PCI vs. CABG 0.13 (0.05–0.32)  < 0.001 0.13 (0.05–0.32)  < 0.001 SYNTAX score  SYNTAX score 1.05 (1.01–1.08) 0.005 1.38 (0.84–2.25) 0.201  PCI vs. CABG 0.13 (0.05–0.32)  < 0.001 0.14 (0.06–0.36)  < 0.001 CABG: coronary artery bypass graft surgery, PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention, EuroSCORE score: European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation, STEMI: ST–segment elevation myocardial infarction; NSTEMI: non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval In non-emergent revascularization, PCI was associated with lower MACCE in patients with low [0.16 (0.04–0.70); P = 0.015] and intermediate [0.20 (0.09–0.48); P < 0.001] EuroSCORE compared to CABG in patients with the same EuroSCORE category. PCI was associated with lower MACCE in patients with low [0.09 (0.02–0.41); P = 0.002] and intermediate [0.30 (0.13–0.73); P = 0.008] SYNTAX scores compared to CABG with the same SYNTAX score category (Table 6). In non-emergent revascularization, PCI was associated with reduced hospital mortality in patients with intermediate [0.12 (0.03–0.43); P = 0.001] and high [0.13 (0.03–0.47); P = 0.002] EuroSCORE compared to CABG with the same EuroSCORE category. PCI was associated with lower hospital mortality in patients with low [0.09 (0.01–0.89); P = 0.031] and intermediate [0.09 (0.02–0.39); P = 0.001] SYNTAX scores compared to CABG with the same SYNTAX score category (Table 7). Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that factors that increased the follow-up MACCE were female sex, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock at presentation, low left ventricular ejection fraction, hypertension, and low body mass index. Emergent PCI had a lower rate of follow-up MACCE compared to CABG [HR: 0.30 (95% CI 0.14–0.66), P < 0.003], with no difference between elective CABG and PCI [HR: 0.79 (95% CI 0.47–1.31), P = 0.355]. Factors associated with follow-up mortality were age, hypertension, peripheral arterial disease, and high EuroSCORE II. There was no difference in follow-up mortality between emergency PCI and CABG [HR: 1.18 (95% CI 0.23- 6.08), P = 0.845]. However, elective PCI was associated with lower follow-up mortality than CABG [HR: 0.35 (95% CI 0.16–0.76), P = 0.008] (Table 8).Table 8 Multivariable Cox regression analysis for factors affecting follow-up MACCE and all-cause mortality HR (95% CI) P Follow-up MACCE  Female 2.47 (1.58–3.87)  < 0.001  Arrest 2.82 (1.06–7.49) 0.038  Ejection fraction 0.97 (0.95–0.98)  < 0.001  Hypertension 2.04 (1.16–3.58) 0.013  Body mass index 0.95 (0.91–0.99) 0.020 Group  Elective PCI vs. CABG 0.79 (0.47–1.31) 0.355  Emergency PCI vs. CABG 0.30 (0.14–0.66) 0.003 Follow-up all-cause mortality  Age 1.04 (1.004–1.07) 0.027  Hypertension 5.32 (1.26–22.45) 0.023  Peripheral arterial disease 2.91 (1.30–6.53) 0.010  EuroSCORE 1.07 (1.04–1.11)  < 0.001 Group  Elective PCI vs. CABG 0.35 (0.16–0.76) 0.008  Emergency PCI vs. CABG 1.18 (0.23–6.08) 0.845 MACCE: major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, CABG: coronary artery bypass graft surgery, PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention, EuroSCORE score: European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation, HR: hazard ratio Discussion Several studies addressing revascularization of the LMCA disease focused on patients with chronic coronary artery disease; however, around 7% of patients with LMCA disease present with acute coronary syndrome [14]. Those patients are usually excluded from clinical studies; therefore, it is essential to evaluate the optimal revascularization strategy for LMCA disease in both elective and emergency situations [15]. The Gulf Left-Main Study investigated emergent LMCA revascularization and compared the outcomes of PCI versus CABG. The study found that PCI was associated with lower hospital MACCE and hospital all-cause mortality compared to CABG in patients presented with arrest or shock; however, there was no advantage of PCI vs. CABG in emergency revascularization if stratified by EuroSCORE or SYNTAX score. Additionally, PCI had lower follow-up MACCE compared to CABG in emergent LMCA revascularization within a 20-month follow-up period. PCI was more advantageous than CABG in non-emergency situations, especially in patients with low and intermediate EuroSCORE and SYNTAX scores. Despite being associated with high mortality, revascularization in the acute phase has been shown to improve prognosis [16]. The baseline characteristics differed between groups. The EuroSCORE II was significantly higher in patients with PCI compared to CABG in patients who had emergency revascularization, and there was a greater number of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 40% in the PCI group in emergency and non-emergency revascularization. However, EuroSCORE was higher in CABG patients with non-emergent revascularization than in PCI. Of patients who required LMCA revascularization, 21.5% were identified as needing revascularization emergently. The study also found that the incidence of LMCA being the culprit lesion in patients with acute myocardial infarction was 5%, which is consistent with a previous report [17, 18]. In a meta-analysis of 977 patients from 13 different studies, the thirty-day mortality was 15% post-emergent LMCA PCI, comparable to the data for the PCI group in this study [19]. In patients who required emergent LMCA revascularization using CABG, the estimated death rate was reported to be 19%, which is higher than the rate of 11.7% in this study, indicating a trend toward percutaneous revascularization for high-risk patients and considering surgical options only for lower-risk selected patients [20]. The choice of revascularization strategy is largely affected by the clinical status of the patients. Urgent revascularization with either PCI or CABG is essential in clinically unstable patients to improve survival [21]. Practically, PCI is more convenient in emergencies. We found that PCI had survival benefits and lower hospital and follow-up MACCE in patients with shock or cardiac arrest. The outcomes of emergency revascularization were affected by patients' characteristics rather than the revascularization technique, except in critically ill patients with either arrest or shock. Optimizing patients before PCI and the early use of mechanical circulatory support in those patients might improve the outcomes of emergency revascularization [22]. In this study, PCI was more advantageous for revascularizing non-emergent LMCA disease, especially in patients with low and intermediate risk stratification using EuroSCORE and SYNTAX scores. Once discharged, the reported mortality in this study was low (1.23–2.59% CABG vs. PCI, respectively) compared to published reports of 10.5% mortality at one year with emergent PCI of LMCA lesions [23]. This study is the largest series to date to assess revascularization in patients requiring emergent LMCA intervention. This demonstrates that PCI was associated with better in-hospital and follow-up outcomes than CABG, especially in patients presented in critically ill conditions. This supports PCI as the intervention of choice for hemodynamically unstable patients in the setting of myocardial infarction. However, the study had some limitations, including its retrospective, nonrandomized design and the potential influence of unmeasured factors, such as the surgeons' experience and the volumes of the procedures at participating centers. Therefore, future randomized trials on this subset of patients are highly recommended to continue to define optimal revascularization strategies. Conclusions Emergent LMCA revascularization is associated with high in-hospital mortality and morbidity. Nevertheless, patients who survive to discharge have a much better prognosis. PCI could be advantageous over CABG in revascularizing LMCA disease in emergencies. PCI could be preferred for revascularization of non-emergent LMCA in patients with intermediate EuroSCORE and low and intermediate SYNTAX scores. Abbreviations LMCA Left-main coronary artery PCI Percutaneous coronary intervention CABG Coronary artery bypass graft surgery MACCE Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events EuroSCORE score European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation CABG Coronary artery bypass grafting MACCE Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events OR Odds ratio CI Confidence interval IQR Interquartile range HR Hazard ratio LV Left ventricle CAD Coronary artery disease EHR Electronic health record VIF Variance inflation factor EuroSCORE score European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation NSTE-ACS Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome SYNTAX The SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and cardiac surgery DES Drug eluting stent ACE Angiotensin-converting enzyme ARB Angiotensin II receptor blocker ASA Aspirin Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all the nurses and cardiac catheterization technologists who helped in collecting the data from all the participating centers. Author contributions AD, AA, SRD, AZ, ASH, WA, NY, AA, MA, BA, AE, AAA, AJ, KZA, RA, AHA, TA, SH, ZD, WR, HMK, MAG, HA, NH, YE, ES, JA, MAQ, WQ, MNA, AMI, AE, AA, MJN, TH, MB, AFH, IAMA, MMM, OA, MR, AAG, AMS, HAN, A.M., FA, SA, MK, RTB, AA, IA, AL: study design, development, data collection. AD, SRD, AZ, AAA, AL: produced the initial draft of the manuscript. AAA: statistical analysis including figures, tables and interpretation of data. AD, AAA, AL: reviewed the manuscript and provided critical revision and final editing. Funding The authors have no funding sources to disclose. Availability of data and materials The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center in Riyadh (12 November 2020—RAC # 2201226: Gulf-LM Registry) and was carried out per the local guidelines and ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent The IRB waived informed consent for this study due to its retrospective and observational nature and the absence of any patient-identifying information. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. ==== Refs References 1. Gaudino M Farkouh ME Stone GW Left main revascularization: an evidence-based reconciliation Eur Heart J 2022 43 25 2421 2424 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac216 35452115 2. Mavromatis K Sandesara PB Complete revascularization in left main disease: is it important? JACC Asia 2023 3 75 77 10.1016/j.jacasi.2022.11.006 36873759 3. Neumann F-J Sousa-Uva M Ahlsson A Alfonso F Banning AP Benedetto U ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization Eur Heart J 2018 40 2 87 165 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394 4. Huang HW Brent BN Shaw RE Trends in percutaneous versus surgical revascularization of unprotected left main coronary stenosis in the drug-eluting stent era: a report from the American college of cardiology-national cardiovascular data registry (ACC-NCDR) Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Off J Soc Card Angiogr Interv 2006 68 6 867 872 10.1002/ccd.20886 5. Tam DY Fang J Rocha RV Rao SV Dzavik V Lawton J Real-world examination of revascularization strategies for left main coronary disease in ontario Canada JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2023 16 3 277 288 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.10.016 36609048 6. Daoulah A Alasmari A Hersi AS Alshehri M Al GT Abuelatta R Percutaneous coronary intervention Vs coronary artery bypass surgery for unprotected left main coronary disease: G-LM registry Curr Probl Cardiol 2022 47 10 101002 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2021.101002 34587490 7. Daoulah A Abozenah M Alshehri M Hersi AS Yousif N Al GT Unprotected left main revascularization in the setting of non-coronary atherosclerosis: gulf left main registry Curr Probl Cardiol 2023 48 1 101424 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101424 36167223 8. Nashef SAM Roques F Sharples LD Nilsson J Smith C Goldstone AR EuroSCORE II† Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg 2012 41 4 734 745 10.1093/ejcts/ezs043 9. Ong ATL Serruys PW Mohr FW Morice M-C Kappetein AP Holmes DRJ The SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) study: design, rationale, and run-in phase Am Heart J 2006 151 6 1194 1204 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.07.017 16781219 10. Medina A Suárez de Lezo J Pan M A new classification of coronary bifurcation lesions Rev Esp Cardiol 2006 59 183 10.1157/13084649 16540043 11. Schulman S Angerås U Bergqvist D Eriksson B Lassen MR Fisher W Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in surgical patients J Thromb Haemost 2010 8 1 202 204 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03678.x 19878532 12. Schulman S Kearon C Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients J Thromb Haemost 2005 3 4 692 694 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2005.01204.x 15842354 13. Ballantyne A Eriksson S Research ethics revised: the new CIOMS guidelines and the world medical association declaration of helsinki in context Bioethics 2019 33 310 311 10.1111/bioe.12581 30884547 14. Abdelmalak HD Omar HR Mangar D Camporesi EM Unprotected left main coronary stenting as alternative therapy to coronary bypass surgery in high surgical risk acute coronary syndrome patients Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis 2013 7 4 214 223 10.1177/1753944713488637 23813548 15. Tam DY Bakaeen F Feldman DN Kolh P Lanza GA Ruel M Modality selection for the revascularization of left main disease Can J Cardiol 2019 35 8 983 992 10.1016/j.cjca.2018.12.017 31277888 16. Beijk MAM Palacios-Rubio J Grundeken MJD Kalkman DN De Winter RJ Clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock secondary to total occlusive unprotected left main coronary artery lesion-related acute myocardial infarction J Clin Med 2023 10.3390/jcm12041311 36835846 17. Baek JY Seo SM Park H-J Kim PJ Park MW Koh YS Clinical outcomes and predictors of unprotected left main stem culprit lesions in patients with acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Off J Soc Card Angiogr Interv 2014 83 7 E243 E250 10.1002/ccd.23420 18. Cheng C-I Wu C-J Fang C-Y Youssef AA Chen C-J Chen S-M Feasibility and safety of transradial stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenoses Circ J 2007 71 6 855 861 10.1253/circj.71.855 17526980 19. Vis MM Beijk MA Grundeken MJ Baan JJ Koch KT Wykrzykowska JJ A systematic review and meta-analysis on primary percutaneous coronary intervention of an unprotected left main coronary artery culprit lesion in the setting of acute myocardial infarction JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013 6 4 317 324 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.10.020 23597607 20. Nagaoka H Ohnuki M Hirooka K Shimoyama T Emergency coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease Kyobu Geka 1999 52 8 Suppl 634 638 10441952 21. Hochman JS Sleeper LA Webb JG Sanborn TA White HD Talley JD Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK investigators. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock N Engl J Med 1999 341 9 625 634 10.1056/NEJM199908263410901 10460813 22. Fernando SM Price S Mathew R Slutsky AS Combes A Brodie D Mechanical circulatory support in the treatment of cardiogenic shock Curr Opin Crit Care 2022 28 4 434 441 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000956 35793815 23. Pappalardo A Mamas MA Imola F Ramazzotti V Manzoli A Prati F Percutaneous coronary intervention of unprotected left main coronary artery disease as culprit lesion in patients with acute myocardial infarction JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011 4 6 618 626 10.1016/j.jcin.2011.02.016 21700247