Impact of angiographic complete revascularization after drug-eluting stent implantation or coronary artery bypass graft surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease.
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.
- SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We aimed to investigate that complete revascularization (CR) would be associated with a decreased mortality in patients with multivessel disease (MVD) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We enrolled a total of 263 patients with MVD and LVEF <50% who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent between March 2003 and December 2010. We compared major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular accident (MACCE) including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, any revascularization, and cerebrovascular accident between CR and incomplete revascularization (IR). CR was achieved in 150 patients. During median follow-up of 40 months, MACCE occurred in 52 (34.7%) patients in the CR group versus 51 (45.1%) patients in the IR group (P=0.06). After a Cox regression model with inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighting using propensity score, the incidence of MACCE of the CR group were lower than those of the IR group (34.7% vs. 45.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.95, P=0.03). The rate of all-cause death was significantly lower in patients with CR than in those with IR (adjusted HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.80, P<0.01). In conclusion, the achievement of CR with drug-eluting stent reduces long-term MACCE in patients with MVD and reduced LVEF.Journal of Korean Medical Science 11/2014; 29(11):1501-6. · 1.25 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: AimThe purpose of this study was to compare the impact of incomplete revascularization (IR) plus optimal medical therapy (OMT) to OMT alone on 1 year clinical outcomes in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) who were not eligible for coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG).Methods This is a prospective randomized study conducted on 50 selected patients with chronic stable angina with documented MVD and CABG was refused by the surgeon due to poor distal vessel quality. Patients were randomized 1:1 into two groups, group (I): 25 patients were subjected to OMT alone and group (II): 25 patients were subjected to IR plus OMT. All patients were subjected to 1 year follow up.ResultsThe baseline patients’ details were matched. At 1 year; death occurred slightly more in group II (16% versus 12%; p = 1.000), ACS occurred more in the group I (32% versus 16%; p = 0.321) while freedom from angina occurred more in group II (20% versus 4%; p = 0.189). The OMT alone did not affect neither the level of angina class nor EF; while the IR plus OMT markedly improved the decline in the level of angina class (p = 0.011), but it did not improve EF significantly (p = 0.326).Conclusion In patients with MVD who were not eligible for CABG; IR plus OMT was not superior to OMT alone in improving the 1year clinical outcomes except the improvement in the level of angina class, which could be the adopted strategy to improve the quality of life in such patients but with close follow up.JACC Cardiovascular Interventions 06/2013; 65(2):57–64. · 7.44 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.