Article

Impact of angiographic complete revascularization after drug-eluting stent implantation or coronary artery bypass graft surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease.

Cardiac Institute, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Circulation (Impact Factor: 15.2). 05/2011; 123(21):2373-81. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.005041
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study sought to evaluate the clinical impact of angiographic complete revascularization (CR) after drug-eluting stent implantation or coronary artery bypass graft surgery for multivessel coronary disease.
A total of 1914 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary disease undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation (1400 patients) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (514 patients) were enrolled. Angiographic CR was defined as revascularization in all diseased segments according to the Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery classification. The outcomes of patients undergoing CR were compared with those undergoing incomplete revascularization (IR) after adjustments with the inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting method. Angiographic CR was performed in 917 patients (47.9%) including 573 percutaneous coronary intervention (40.9%) and 344 coronary artery bypass graft (66.9%) patients. CR patients were younger and had more extensive coronary disease than IR patients. Over 5 years, CR patients had comparable incidences of death (8.9% versus 8.9%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.76 to 1.43; P=0.81), the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (12.1% versus 11.9%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.36; P=0.80), and the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization (22.4% versus 24.9%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.10; P=0.32) compared with IR patients. However, 368 patients (19.2%) with multivessel IR had a greater tendency toward higher risk of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization (30.3% versus 22.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.66; P=0.079) than those without multivessel IR.
Angiographic CR with drug-eluting stent implantation or coronary artery bypass grafting did not improve long-term clinical outcomes in patients with multivessel disease. This finding supports the strategy of ischemia-guided revascularization.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
66 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Arterial grafting is superior to venous grafting in coronary artery bypass graft surgery with respect to graft patency and long-term patient outcome, but it may be difficult to achieve complete arterial revascularization. Use of arterial grafts, especially bilateral internal mammary artery grafts, is not common, whereas there are clear indications that it may increase survival. Definitions of complete revascularization are varied and confusing, making study comparisons difficult. Technical challenges in complete revascularization with arterial grafts can be minimized by surgical techniques. Competitive flow in moderately stenosed coronary arteries grafted with arterial conduits may result in reduced patency. While internal mammary arteries may be used in arteries with at least 60% stenosis, radial artery and gastroepiploic grafts are best placed onto coronaries with severe stenosis. Moderate lesions in the left coronary circulation should be bypassed, but right coronary artery lesions can be left untouched as there is minimal progression over time. Complete revascularization may not be necessary or possible in every patient because of technical challenges. Complete revascularization with arterial grafts presents both technical and physiological challenges. However, with techniques to maximize length of arterial conduits, knowledge of competitive flow and which moderate lesions should be addressed, complete revascularization with arterial grafts can be accomplished in the majority of patients, notwithstanding it may not be possible or even indicated for every patient.
    Current opinion in cardiology 09/2013; · 2.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We evaluated the impact of the routine use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) on the practice and outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Between January 2008 and December 2011, the rate of FFR use during PCI increased from 1.9 to 50.7% after the introduction of routine FFR use (P < 0.001). A total of 5097 patients (2699 patients before and 2398 after the routine use of FFR) underwent PCI at an academic hospital in Korea; of those, stent implantation was deferred in 475 patients. We used propensity score (PS) matching to compare the rates of the primary endpoint [death, myocardial infarction (MI), or repeat revascularization] at 1 year the cohort before and after the routine use of FFR. In the PS-matched cohort (2178 pairs), the median number of lesions per patient was 2 [inter-quartile range (IQR) 1-2] before vs. 2 (IQR 1-2) after the routine FFR use (P = 0.68); the median number of stents implanted per patient was 2 (IQR 1-3) vs. 1 (IQR 1-2), respectively (P < 0.001). The rates of the primary endpoint at 1 year was significantly lower in patients after the routine FFR use vs. patients before the routine use of FFR (hazard ratio 0.55; 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.70; P < 0.001). This was primarily due to a reduction in peri-procedural MI and repeat revascularization. Routine measurement of FFR in daily practice appeared to be associated with less use of stents and an improvement in clinical outcomes. NCT 01788592.
    European Heart Journal 10/2013; · 14.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: At the age of nearly 50 years, the procedure of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) now has the most solid evidence supporting its role in revascularization for stable ischemic heart disease in its history. In what is a relatively infrequent occurrence in medicine, the results from large-scale observational database analyses are now aligned with and supported by data from recent randomized trials, providing important contemporary evidence in support of CABG. However, even with strong evidence, the changing landscape of revascularization for stable ischemic heart disease threatens to make this evidence irrelevant in deciding which patients should be referred for CABG in the future. How the procedure of CABG could be modified and optimized for incorporation into this new landscape is discussed in this article.
    Future Cardiology 01/2014; 10(1):63-79.