Differential Clinical Outcomes Between Angiographic Complete Versus Incomplete Coronary Revascularization, According to the Presence of Chronic Kidney Disease in the Drug-Eluting Stent Era

BACKGROUND

There are limited data regarding the prognostic impact of angiographic complete revascularization (CR) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We sought to investigate the differential prognostic impact of angiographic CR over incomplete revascularization (IR), according to the presence of CKD in the drug-eluting stent era.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between 2003 and 2011 at Samsung Medical Center, consecutive patients with multivessel disease were stratified by the presence of CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m²) and classified according to angiographic CR (residual SYNTAX score=0) or IR. Clinical outcomes were compared between angiographic CR and IR, stratified by the presence of CKD. Primary outcome was patient-oriented composite outcomes (POCO, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, any revascularization) at 3 years. Inverse probability weighting was performed between the CR and IR groups. A total of 3224 patients were eligible for analysis: 2295 without CKD; 929 with CKD. Among non-CKD patients, angiographic CR showed a significantly lower risk of POCO than IR (17.2% versus 21.7%, adjusted hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.95, P=0.014), mainly driven by a significantly lower risk of any revascularization. Among CKD patients, however, angiographic CR was associated with a significantly higher risk of POCO than IR (37.7% versus 28.4%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval, 1.08%-1.85%, P=0.011), mainly driven by a significantly higher risk of nonfatal target vessel myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Angiographic CR was associated with reduced risk of POCO than IR in patients without CKD; however, it was associated with a significantly higher risk of POCO and nonfatal myocardial infarction in CKD patients.

Long-term outcomes post chronic total occlusion intervention-implications of completeness of revascularization

BACKGROUND

Long term clinical outcomes post chronic total occlusion (CTO) intervention may depend not only on CTO success/failure alone but also on Completeness of revascularization.

OBJECTIVES

To determine long term outcomes post CTO intervention and relate them to both success versus failure and Complete Revascularization (CR) versus Incomplete Revascularization (IR).

METHODS

Consecutive patients taken up for CTO intervention with at-least one CTO vessel between Jan 2006 to Dec 2015 were included. Clinical, procedural and follow up details were recorded in a pre-specified custom made software. Primary endpoint of the study was survival free of major adverse event individual, death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularisation (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and recurrent or continued angina. Each individual adverse event was considered as a secondary end point.

RESULTS

A total of 632 patients were enrolled in study with follow up data available in 549 (86%) constituting the study group with 490 (89.3%) success and 59 (11.7%) failure. Complete revascularization (CR) was obtained in 410 (74.7%). Follow up was median 2.9 years with inter-quartile range 1.1-4.8 years. Kaplan Meier survival analysis showed a better EFS with both CTO success versus failure (P = 0.03)and CR versus IR (P = 0.017). Individual adverse outcomes however were not significantly different in CTO success versus failure group but significantly better when analyzed with respect to CR versus IR including death (P = 0.049) and recurrent angina (P = 0.024). Repeat intervention and MI were not different by either analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful CTO PCI results in a better long term event free survival but the difference between the groups is more if analyzed with respect to completeness of revascularization rather than CTO success/failure alone.

The prognostic significance of incomplete revascularization and untreated coronary anatomy following percutaneous coronary intervention: An analysis of 6,755 patients with multivessel disease

BACKGROUND

More than half of the patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have multivessel disease. Whether complete revascularization impacts long-term mortality or whether selected patients or those with specific coronary anatomy benefit from complete revascularization is unclear.

METHODS

A total of 14,452 patients underwent PCI between 2004 and 2015 at Harefield Hospital, UK. Of these, 7,076 patients had multivessel disease. We excluded 321 patients with left main-stem stenosis ≥50%, with 6,755 patients included in the analysis (936 patients had complete revascularization).

RESULTS

The unadjusted 3-year mortality rates were lower with complete revascularization (10.8% vs 13.1%, P = 0.047). However, multivariable-adjusted analyses indicated that complete revascularization was not independently associated with mortality (HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.78-1.31, P = 0.939). These findings were unchanged when addressing measured confounding using propensity-matched analyses (HR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.81-1.65, P = 0.417) and inverse probability treatment weighted analyses (HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.77-1.33, P = 0.950); and unmeasured confounding using instrumental variable analyses (Δ = 0.9%, 95% CI: -2.5%, 4.3%, P = 0.958). There was no association with mortality and untreated LAD disease (HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.17, P = 0.482) and LCx disease (HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.74-1.10, P = 0.999). However, untreated proximal LAD disease (HR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.06-1.51, P = 0.045) and RCA disease (HR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.08-1.65, P = 0.007) was associated with increased mortality, particularly in patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (STEACS).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of unselected patients undergoing PCI, complete revascularization did not confer a mortality benefit. However, the presence of untreated proximal LAD and RCA disease was prognostic in patients with STEACS. Thus, complete revascularization may be considered in select patient groups with anatomical subsets of coronary disease.

Optimal Timing of Complete Revascularization in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Studies have suggested that complete revascularization is superior to culprit‐only revascularization for the treatment of enzyme‐positive acute coronary syndrome. However, the optimal timing of complete revascularization remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing single‐stage complete revascularization with multistage percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction or non–ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease.

Methods and Results

We systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PubMed, and MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials comparing single‐stage complete revascularization with multistage revascularization in patients with enzyme‐positive acute coronary syndrome. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at longest follow‐up. Data were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random‐effects models. Four randomized controlled trials (n=838) were included in our meta‐analysis. The risk of unplanned repeat revascularization at longest follow‐up was significantly lower in patients randomized to single‐stage complete revascularization (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47–0.99). Results also suggest a trend towards lower risks of major adverse cardiovascular events for patients randomized to single‐stage revascularization at 6 months (risk ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40–1.11) and at longest follow‐up (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.52–1.20). Risks of mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction at longest follow‐up were also lower with single‐stage revascularization, but 95% CIs were wide and included unity.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that single‐stage complete revascularization is safe. There also appears to be a trend towards lower long‐term risks of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events; however, additional randomized controlled trials are required to confirm the potential benefits of single‐stage multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention.

Prognosis of complete versus incomplete revascularisation of patients with STEMI with multivessel coronary artery disease: an observational study

Objective

The best strategy in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) regarding completeness of revascularisation of the non-culprit lesion(s) is still unclear. To establish which strategy should be followed, survival rates over a longer period should be evaluated. The aim of this study was to investigate whether complete revascularisation, compared with incomplete revascularisation, is associated with reduced short-term and long-term all-cause mortality in patients with first STEMI and multivessel CAD.

Methods

This retrospective study consisted of 518 patients with first STEMI with multivessel CAD. Complete revascularisation (45%) was defined as the treatment of any significant coronary artery stenosis (≥70% luminal narrowing) during primary or staged percutaneous coronary intervention prior to discharge. The primary end point was all-cause mortality.

Results

Incomplete revascularisation was not independently associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with acute first STEMI and multivessel CAD (OR 1.98; 95% CI 0.62to6.37; p=0.25). During a median long-term follow-up of 6.7 years, patients with STEMI with multivessel CAD and incomplete revascularisation showed higher mortality rates compared with patients who received complete revascularisation (24% vs 12%, p<0.001), and these differences remained after excluding the first 30 days. However, in multivariate analysis, incomplete revascularisation was not independently associated with increased all-cause mortality during long-term follow-up in the group of patients with STEMI who survived the first 30 days post-STEMI (HR 1.53 95% CI 0.89-2.61, p=0.12).

Conclusion

In patients with acute first STEMI and multivessel CAD, incomplete revascularisation compared with complete revascularisation was not independently associated with increased short-term and long-term all-cause mortality.

Revascularization in ischemic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. The impact of complete revascularization

Heart failure is a growing problem worldwide, with coronary artery disease being the underlying cause of over two-thirds of cases. Revascularization in this group of patients may potentially inhibit the progressive damage to the myocardium and lead to improved outcomes, but data in this area are scarce. This article emphasizes the role of qualification for revascularization and selection of method (percutaneous coronary intervention vs. coronary artery bypass grafting) and subsequently focuses on the issue of completeness of revascularization in this group of patients.

Impact of Incomplete Percutaneous Revascularization in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Up to half of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention have multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) with conflicting data regarding optimal revascularization strategy in such patients. This paper assesses the evidence for complete revascularization (CR) versus incomplete revascularization in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and its prognostic impact using meta‐analysis.

Methods and Results

A search of PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Current Contents Connect, Google Scholar, Cochrane library, Science Direct, and Web of Science was conducted to identify the association of CR in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with major adverse cardiac events and mortality. Random‐effects meta‐analysis was used to estimate the odds of adverse outcomes. Meta‐regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationship with continuous variables and outcomes. Thirty‐eight publications that included 156 240 patients were identified. Odds of death (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.61‐0.78), repeat revascularization (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45‐0.80), myocardial infarction (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50‐0.81), and major adverse cardiac events (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50‐0.79) were significantly lower in the patients who underwent CR. These outcomes were unchanged on subgroup analysis regardless of the definition of CR. Similar findings were recorded when CR was studied in the chronic total occlusion (CTO) subgroup (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53‐0.80). A meta‐regression analysis revealed a negative relationship between the OR for mortality and the percentage of CR.

Conclusion

CR is associated with reduced risk of mortality and major adverse cardiac events, irrespective of whether an anatomical or a score‐based definition of incomplete revascularization is used, and this magnitude of risk relates to degree of CR. These results have important implications for the interventional management of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

Complete Versus Lesion-Only Primary PCI: The Randomized Cardiovascular MR CvLPRIT Substudy

Background

Complete revascularization may improve outcomes compared with an infarct-related artery (IRA)-only strategy in patients being treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) who have multivessel disease presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there is concern that non-IRA PCI may cause additional non-IRA myocardial infarction (MI).

Objectives

This study sought to determine whether in-hospital complete revascularization was associated with increased total infarct size compared with an IRA-only strategy.

Methods

This multicenter prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint clinical trial evaluated STEMI patients with multivessel disease having PPCI within 12 h of symptom onset. Patients were randomized to either IRA-only PCI or complete in-hospital revascularization. Contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) was performed following PPCI (median day 3) and stress CMR at 9 months. The pre-specified primary endpoint was infarct size on pre-discharge CMR. The study had 80% power to detect a 4% difference in infarct size with 100 patients per group.

Results

Of the 296 patients in the main trial, 205 participated in the CMR substudy, and 203 patients (98 complete revascularization and 105 IRA-only) completed the pre-discharge CMR. The groups were well-matched. Total infarct size (median, interquartile range) was similar to IRA-only revascularization: 13.5% (6.2% to 21.9%) versus complete revascularization, 12.6% (7.2% to 22.6%) of left ventricular mass, p = 0.57 (95% confidence interval for difference in geometric means 0.82 to 1.41). The complete revascularization group had an increase in non-IRA MI on the pre-discharge CMR (22 of 98 vs. 11 of 105, p = 0.02). There was no difference in total infarct size or ischemic burden between treatment groups at follow-up CMR.

Conclusions

Multivessel PCI in the setting of STEMI leads to a small increase in CMR-detected non-IRA MI, but total infarct size was not significantly different from an IRA-only revascularization strategy. (Complete Versus Lesion-Only Primary PCI Pilot Study [CvLPRIT]; ISRCTN70913605)

Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial

Background

The optimal management of patients found to have multivessel disease while undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is uncertain.

Objectives

CvLPRIT (Complete versus Lesion-only Primary PCI trial) is a U.K. open-label randomized study comparing complete revascularization at index admission with treatment of the infarct-related artery (IRA) only.

Methods

After they provided verbal assent and underwent coronary angiography, 296 patients in 7 U.K. centers were randomized through an interactive voice-response program to either in-hospital complete revascularization (n = 150) or IRA-only revascularization (n = 146). Complete revascularization was performed either at the time of P-PCI or before hospital discharge. Randomization was stratified by infarct location (anterior/nonanterior) and symptom onset (≤3 h or >3 h). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, and ischemia-driven revascularization within 12 months.

Results

Patient groups were well matched for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.0% of the complete revascularization group versus 21.2% in the IRA-only revascularization group (hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.24 to 0.84; p = 0.009). A trend toward benefit was seen early after complete revascularization (p = 0.055 at 30 days). Although there was no significant reduction in death or MI, a nonsignificant reduction in all primary endpoint components was seen. There was no reduction in ischemic burden on myocardial perfusion scintigraphy or in the safety endpoints of major bleeding, contrast-induced nephropathy, or stroke between the groups.

Conclusions

In patients presenting for P-PCI with multivessel disease, index admission complete revascularization significantly lowered the rate of the composite primary endpoint at 12 months compared with treating only the IRA. In such patients, inpatient total revascularization may be considered, but larger clinical trials are required to confirm this result and specifically address whether this strategy is associated with improved survival. (Complete Versus Lesion-only Primary PCI Pilot Study [CvLPRIT]; ISRCTN70913605)

Comparison of Approaches to Revascularization in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Presenting With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Meta-analyses of Randomized Control Trials

BACKGROUND

Significant controversy exists regarding the best approach for nonculprit vessel revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. We conducted a systematic investigation to pool data from current randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess optimal treatment strategies in this patient population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A comprehensive search of SCOPUS from inception through May 2015 was performed using predefined criteria. We compared efficacy and safety outcomes of different approaches by categorizing the studies into 3 groups: (1) complete revascularization (CR) versus culprit lesion revascularization (CL) at index hospitalization, (2) CR at index hospitalization versus staged revascularization (SR) of nonculprit vessels at a separate hospitalization, and (3) comparison of SR versus CL. Eight eligible RCTs met the inclusion criteria: (1) CR versus CL (6 RCTs, n=1727) (2) CR versus SR (3 RCTs, n=311), and (3) SR versus CL (1 RCT, n=149). We observed significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, revascularization, and repeat percutaneous coronary interventions among patients treated with CR and SR compared with a CL approach (P<0.05). The rates of all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, major bleeding, reinfarction, stroke, and contrast-induced nephropathy did not differ in the CR arm compared with the CL arm. The rates of these outcomes were similar in the CR and SR arms.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that CR and SR compared with CL reduce major adverse cardiovascular event and revascularization rates primarily by lowering repeated percutaneous coronary intervention rates. We did not observe any increase in the rate of adverse events while using a CR or SR strategy compared with a CL approach. Current guidelines discouraging CR need to be reevaluated, and clinical judgment should prevail in treating multivessel coronary artery disease patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction as data from larger RCTs accumulate.

Optimal treatment of multivessel complex coronary artery disease

The aim of the present study was to investigate major cardiac events and the similarities and differences of medical costs among patients with multivessel complex coronary artery disease (MCCAD) during the three-year follow-up. The MCCAD patients had undergone single complete revascularization (CR), fractionated revascularization (FR) or partial revascularization (PR) and the present study aimed to screen the optimal treatment program. A total of 2,309 MCCAD patients who had been treated at a single center in the last decade, among which 1,020 cases underwent single CR, 856 cases successively underwent FR and 433 cases only underwent PR, were followed-up for three years. Major cardiac events, including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, severe heart failure, rehospitalization and revascularization (coronary artery bypass grafting and coronary stent reimplantation), were set as the end points. In addition, the three-year medical costs associated with heart disease were analyzed. The three-year cardiac event rate in the CR group (17%) was significantly lower compared with the other two groups and the average three-year medical costs in the CR group (62,100 RMB) were significantly lower than those in the other two groups. Therefore, under permissive conditions, single CR is the optimal and most economical treatment strategy for patients with MCCAD.

Arterial grafts balance survival between incomplete and complete revascularization: a series of 1000 consecutive coronary artery bypass graft patients with 98% arterial grafts

OBJECTIVE

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with incomplete revascularization (ICR) is thought to decrease survival. We studied the survival of patients with ICR undergoing total arterial grafting.

METHODS

In a consecutive series of all-comer 1000 patients with isolated CABG, operative and midterm survival were assessed for patients undergoing complete versus ICR, with odds ratios and hazard ratios, adjusted for European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation category, CABG urgency, age, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

In this series of 1000 patients with 98% arterial grafts (2922 arterial, 59 vein grafts), 73% of patients with multivessel disease received bilateral internal mammary artery grafts. ICR occurred in 140 patients (14%). Operative mortality was 3.8% overall, 8.6% for patients with ICR, and 3.2% for patients with complete revascularization (P = .008). For operative mortality using multivariable logistic regression, after controlling for European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation category (P < .001) and CABG urgency (P = .03), there was no evidence of a statistically significant increased risk of death due to ICR (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-3.77). For midterm follow-up (median, 54 months [interquartile range, 27-85 months]), after controlling for European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation category (P < .001) and comorbidities (P = .017) there was a significant interaction between age ≥ 80 years and ICR (P = .017) in predicting mortality. The adjusted hazard ratio associated with ICR for patients older than age 80 years was 5.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.8-18.0) versus 1.2 (95% confidence interval, 0.7-2.1) for younger patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to suggest that ICR in patients with mostly arterial grafts is not associated with decreased survival perioperatively and at midterm in patients younger than age 80 years. Arterial grafting, because of longevity, may balance survival between complete revascularization and ICR.

Outcomes after complete versus incomplete revascularization of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of 89,883 patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials and observational studies

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing complete revascularization (CR) versus incomplete revascularization (IR) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting data regarding the benefits of CR in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

METHODS

We identified observational studies and subgroup analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) published in PubMed from 1970 through September 2012 using the following keywords: "percutaneous coronary intervention" (PCI); "coronary artery bypass graft" (CABG); "complete revascularization"; and "incomplete revascularization." Main outcome measures were total mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization procedures.

RESULTS

We identified 35 studies including 89,883 patients, of whom 45,417 (50.5%) received CR and 44,466 (49.5%) received IR. IR was more common after PCI than after CABG (56% vs. 25%; p < 0.001). Relative to IR, CR was associated with lower long-term mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65 to 0.77; p < 0.001), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.90; p = 0.001), and repeat coronary revascularization (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.83; p < 0.001). The mortality benefit associated with CR was consistent across studies irrespective of revascularization modality (CABG: RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.80; p < 0.001; and PCI: RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.81; p < 0.001) and definition of CR (anatomic definition: RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.79; p < 0.001; and nonanatomic definition: RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.89; p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

CR is achieved more commonly with CABG than with PCI. Among patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, CR may be the optimal revascularization strategy.