[Q's For Author] Lead MAIN-COMPARE Author Hashes Out Study Insights
Professor Yoon Yong-hoon, MAIN-COMPARE lead author, reveals major findings, hashes thoughts on EXCEL and NOBEL, and discusses study limitations and prospects in in-depth interview
June 12, 2020 0 Comments
The 10-year MAIN-COMPARE study published by Korean researchers in February highlighted the importance of the SYNTAX score in predicting long-term benefits of coronary revascularization with PCI and CABG in patients with left main (LM) coronary artery disease and low-to-intermediate anatomic complexity.1
The research team, led by Professor Yoon Yong-hoon (Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, South Korea) and Professor Park Duk-woo (Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea), found that the 10-year risk for death and other clinical outcomes were similar between PCI and CABG, although PCI proved to be associated with a higher risk for death in patients with a high SYNTAX score.
In light of these findings published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, SUMMIT-MD met with lead study author Yoon to discuss major findings of MAIN-COMPARE, the EXCEL trial findings, and future possible studies.
Q: What are the major findings of the MAIN-COMPARE study?
Q: What other insights does the MAIN-COMPARE study offer?
Q: Can you describe the study and how it compares to other trials that looked at PCI vs. CABG in LM coronary artery disease?
Q: What is the importance of these novel findings and what are the clinical applications?
Q: How would you interpret the findings from the EXCEL and NOBEL trials? The 5-year trials showed a limited discriminative capacity of the SYNTAX score in predicting differential outcomes after PCI and CABG.
Q: What is the clinical application of the SYNTAX and SYNTAX-II score, and which is more important?
Q: When making decisions for multi-vessel or left main revascularization, do you routinely use the SYNTAX or SYNTAX II score in daily practice?
Q: Do you have any thoughts on the EXCEL trial controversy based on your study?
Q: How might your findings impact practice?
Q: Are there any study limitations such as factors that would reduce the relevance of these findings for European or American patients?
Q: What are your next steps? Will there be a follow-up analysis in the study population?