Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP) study two-year follow-up: outcomes of patients randomized to initial strategies of medical therapy versus revascularization.

Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa (Ontario) Heart Institute, Canada.
Circulation (Impact Factor: 14.95). 04/1997; 95(8):2037-43. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.95.8.2037
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Patients with ischemia during stress testing and ambulatory ECG monitoring have an increased risk of cardiac events, but it is not known whether their prognosis is improved by more aggressive treatment with anti-ischemic drugs or revascularization.
The Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot study randomized 558 such patients who had coronary anatomy suitable for revascularization to three treatment strategies: angina-guided drug therapy (n=183), angina plus ischemia-guided drug therapy (n=183), or revascularization by angioplasty or bypass surgery (n=192). Two years after randomization, the total mortality was 6.6% in the angina-guided strategy, 4.4% in the ischemia-guided strategy, and 1.1% in the revascularization strategy (P<.02). The rate of death or myocardial infarction was 12.1% in the angina-guided strategy, 8.8% in the ischemia-guided strategy, and 4.7% in the revascularization strategy (P<.04). The rate of death, myocardial infarction, or recurrent cardiac hospitalization was 41.8% in the angina-guided strategy, 38.5% in the ischemia-guided strategy, and 23.1% in the revascularization strategy (P<.001). Pairwise testing revealed significant differences between the revascularization and angina-guided strategies for each comparison.
A strategy of initial revascularization appears to improve the prognosis of this population compared with angina-guided medical therapy. A larger long-term study is needed to confirm this benefit and to adequately test the potential of more aggressive drug therapy.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The role of resting pressure parameters, i.e. instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and resting distal coronary pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) in assessing functionally significant stenosis remains controversial. We sought to assess the diagnostic performance of iFR and resting whole-cycle Pd/Pa in Asian patients. In this study, 238 consecutive lesions (no total occlusions) in which fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured with both intravenous and intracoronary adenosine administration were included. Coded resting pressure data were sent to the core laboratory in which iFR was calculated in a blinded fashion. FFR and iFR had unimodal distributions and the correlation was r=0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.82). In a receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis, iFR had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.9 at FFR≤0.80. The best cut-off value for iFR was 0.90 with a sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic accuracy of 76%, 86%, 82% and 80%, and 82%, respectively. The resting whole-cycle Pd/Pa cut-off of 0.91 demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy of 82% (AUC 0.9). However, iFR had higher discriminatory power than the resting whole-cycle Pd/Pa. Both iFR and resting whole-cycle Pd/Pa showed good diagnostic performance to define the functionally significant stenosis in an independent Asian cohort distributed unimodally and without total occlusions. However, further validation is needed to explore the areas of disagreement between different physiologic parameters prior to adoption of resting pressure parameters into routine clinical practice.
    International journal of cardiology 07/2013; 168(4). DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.07.030 · 6.18 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Coronary pressure-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been used to evaluate functional severity of coronary artery stenoses. The cut-off point of 0.75 was considered to be the indication for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In this study, we examined the prognosis of patients in whom PCI was deferred because the lesion was not significant by FFR (≥0.75). We measured FFR of 44 patients (50 lesions with angiographically intermediate stenoses by pressure wire between 2002 and 2009. Out of 44 patients (50 lesions), functionally non-significant stenoses with FFR≥0.75 were 29 patients (33 lesions) and PCI was deferred. In the remaining 15 patients (17 lesions), FFR was <0.75 and PCI was performed. Patients were followed up for an average period of 53 months with endpoints of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, acute coronary syndrome, PCI, and coronary artery bypass grafting). The rate of MACE was 2/29 (6.9%) in patients with FFR≥0.75 and 2/15 (13.3%) in those with FFR<0.75, and it was not statistically different between the two groups. Since long-term clinical outcomes after deferral of PCI of intermediate coronary stenoses based on FFR were excellent (annual event rate 1.6%/year), FFR is a useful index to judge the indication of PCI and risk-stratify patients for MACE.
    Journal of Cardiology 05/2011; 58(1):32-7. DOI:10.1016/j.jjcc.2011.03.007 · 2.57 Impact Factor
  • Source