Impact of scheduled angiographic follow-up in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy of self-expanding bare metal nitinol stent and balloon angioplasty alone for below-the-knee lesions following successful balloon angioplasty: 1-year clinical outcomes

This prospective, multicenter, randomized study aimed to compare the 1-year clinical outcomes after primary stenting with self-expanding bare metal nitinol stent (SENS) and plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) and below-the-knee (BTK) lesions. Overall, 119 patients with CLI and BTK lesions were randomized to POBA alone (POBA group, 61 patients) or primary stenting with SENS (stenting group, 58 patients) after achieving acceptable POBA results in target BTK lesions. Clinical outcomes including amputation and revascularization rates were prospectively compared for 1 year. After 1 year, similar incidence rates of individual clinical endpoints, including cardiac death (6.5% vs. 5.1%, p > 0.999), myocardial infarction (1.6% vs. 0.0%, p > 0.999), repeat revascularization (19.6% vs. 18.9%, p = 0.922), target lesion revascularization (13.1% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.530), and amputation (4.9% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.244), were observed. POBA appeared to have acceptable treatment outcomes compared with primary stenting with SENS after 1 year in CLI patients with BTK lesions undergoing percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA).

Follow-up tests and outcomes for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: analysis of a Japanese administrative database

Follow-up tests after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are considered inappropriate for asymptomatic patients. Despite this perception, many cardiologists conduct follow-up tests as routine practice. The objective of this study was to investigate the survival benefits of follow-up testing after PCI in a real-world setting in Japan. A nationwide Japanese administrative database was used to identify unselected patients who underwent PCI with stent implantation between January 2010 and December 2013. We used time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models to evaluate the association between follow-up testing and outcomes. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Among a total of 21,409 patients, 15,095 (70.5%) completed follow-up testing, of whom 9814 (45.0%) underwent coronary angiography. During a median of 2.7 years of observation, the primary outcome occurred less frequently for patients who underwent follow-up testing (1.21 vs. 4.51% per year; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI 0.52-0.67; p < 0.001). Individual rates of all-cause death and AMI were also lower for the patients who underwent follow-up testing. Follow-up testing was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death and/or AMI. However, because of the unexpectedly large effect and many limitations of the administrative data, our findings should be further investigated to assess the net benefit of follow-up tests. In addition, we do not intend to encourage routine follow-up tests for patients without clear clinical indications. Follow-up tests should be conducted in accordance with clinical indications.

Routine angiographic follow-up versus clinical follow-up in patients with diabetes following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in Korean population

AIMS

The usefulness of routine angiographic follow-up (RAF) and clinical follow-up (CF) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes is not well understood. We compare 3-year clinical outcomes of RAF and CF in diabetic patients underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES).

METHODS

A total of 843 patients with diabetes who underwent PCI with DES were enrolled. RAF was performed at 6-9 months after PCI (n = 426). Rest of patients were medically managed and clinically followed (n = 417); symptom-driven events were captured. After propensity score matched analysis, 2 propensity-matched groups (262 pairs, n = 524, C-statistic = 0.750) were generated. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), the composite of total death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), non-target vessel revascularization (Non-TVR).

RESULTS

During the 3-year follow-up period, the cumulative incidence of target lesion revascularization [TLR: hazard ratio (HR), 4.07; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-9.34; p = 0.001], target vessel revascularization (TVR: HR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.93-8.40; p < 0.001), non-TVR (HR, 4.92; 95% CI, 1.68-14.4; p = 0.004) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: HR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.60-4.01, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the RAF group. However, the incidence of total death, non-fatal MI were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RAF following index PCI with DES in patients with diabetes was associated with increased incidence of revascularization and MACE without changes of death or re-infarction rates and increased TLR and TVR rates in both first- and second-generation DES.

Routine Angiographic Follow-Up After Coronary Artery Disease Revascularization: Is Seeing Believing?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Coronary artery disease is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in the world, and PCI and CABG account for over a million procedures performed annually in the USA. The goal of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is to achieve complete revascularization (CR) if at all possible. However, restenosis and stent thrombosis (ST) remain the Achilles heel of contemporary PCI with restenosis rates between 10 and 30% with bare metal stents to 5-15% after drug-eluting stents and ST rates of around 0.8 vs 1.2%, respectively. Routine angiography after revascularization seems theoretically attractive as this may allow intervention before clinical events occur. In this manuscript, we review the literature regarding routine angiography after PCI or CABG and its outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

According to the 2016 update from the American Heart Association (AHA), 15.5 million people above the age of 20 have coronary heart disease (CHD) in the USA. The prevalence of CHD is now almost similar in both men and women, and one American suffers from a myocardial infarction (MI) every 42 s. Recent data from randomized clinical trials and observational studies does not support the use of routine coronary angiography after revascularization in asymptomatic patients. There are some studies which show that routine angiography may have a role in left main or complex coronary interventions; however, these findings are exploratory and were not seen in randomized trials. After reviewing the data on routine angiography after coronary revascularization, we came to the conclusion that current data does not support the use of routine angiography for asymptomatic patients. However, there is a lack of randomized controlled trial in this field with only one recent trial reporting negative outcomes.

Routine angiographic follow-up versus clinical follow-up in patients with multivessel coronary artery diseases following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents: a nested case-control study within a Korean population

OBJECTIVE

The difference in the usefulness of routine angiographic follow-up (RAF) and clinical follow-up (CF) after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) patients has not been well clarified as yet.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 642 consecutive MVD patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) were enrolled. RAF was performed at 6-9 months after the index PCI (n=374) and others were medically managed and clinically followed (n=268). Patients who experienced clinical events including death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia-driven PCI before 1 year were excluded. To adjust for any potential confounders, a propensity scorematched analysis was carried out using the logistic regression model and two propensity-matched groups (193 pairs, n=386, C-statistic=0.744) were generated. Cumulative clinical outcomes up to 3 years were compared between the RAF group and the CF group.

RESULTS

During the 3-year follow-up period, the cumulative incidence of revascularization [target lesion revascularization: odds ratio (OR), 4.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.67-10.6; P=0.001) and target vessel revascularization (TVR: OR, 4.69; 95% CI, 2.00-11.0; P<0.001, target vessel revascularization: OR, 4.69; 95% CI, 2.00-1011.0; P<0.001] and major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of death, repeat PCI and MI: OR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.62-105.42, P<0.001) were significantly higher in the RAF group compared with the CF group. However, the 3-year incidence of death (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.44-104.53; P=0.558) or MI (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 0.79-108.37; P=0.102) was not different between the two groups. In MVD patients treated with second-generation DESs, the incidence of repeat revascularization (target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization) was not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Conclusion RAF following index PCI with DES in multivessel CAD patients was associated with increased incidence of revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events. However, in MVD patients treated with second-generation DESs, repeat revascularization incidence was similar between two different follow-up strategies up to 3 years.

Routine Angiographic Follow-Up versus Clinical Follow-Up after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction

PURPOSE

Differences in the utility of routine angiographic follow-up (RAF) and clinical follow-up (CF) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are not well understood. The present study aimed to compare the 3-year clinical outcomes of RAF and CF in AMI patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 774 consecutive AMI patients who underwent PCI with DES were enrolled. RAF was performed at 6 to 9 months after index PCI (n=425). The remaining patients were medically managed and clinically followed (n=349); symptom-driven events were captured. To adjust for any potential confounders, a propensity score matched analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, and two propensity-matched groups (248 pairs, n=496, C-statistic=0.739) were generated. Cumulative clinical outcomes up to 3 years were compared between RAF and CF groups.

RESULTS

During the 3-year follow-up period, the cumulative incidences of revascularization [target lesion revascularization: hazard ratio (HR), 2.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-4.85; p=0.015, target vessel revascularization (TVR): HR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.69-6.58; p=0.001, non-TVR: HR, 5.64; 95% CI, 1.90-16.6; p=0.002] and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; HR, 3.32; 95% CI, 1.92-5.73; p<0.001) were significantly higher in the RAF group than the CF group. However, the 3-year incidences of death and myocardial infarction were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RAF following index PCI with DES in AMI patients was associated with increased incidences of revascularization and MACE. Therefore, CF seems warranted for asymptomatic patients after PCI for AMI.

The role of angiographic follow-up after percutaneous coronary intervention

In the early days of coronary angioplasty, follow-up coronary angiography was often performed to assess restenosis. Angiographic restenosis has been shown to be associated with worse clinical outcomes, though the exact causality has yet to be determined. Numerous studies have repeatedly demonstrated that routine follow-up coronary angiography increases the incidence of target lesion revascularization without a clear reduction in mortality or myocardial infarction. Despite the lack of proven benefit of angiographic follow-up, routine follow-up coronary angiography is still being performed in certain countries and facilities. There are several factors that might explain the lack of benefit of angiographic follow-up: 1) lower incidence of stent failure in the current drug-eluting stent era has attenuated the net clinical benefit of follow-up angiography. 2) Angiographic restenosis might not lead to myocardial ischemia. 3) Patients that do have functionally significant restenosis are often referred for coronary angiography due to clinical indications such as intractable angina. 4) Absence of restenosis at the time of follow-up angiography does not exclude future restenosis. The absence of proven benefit in unselected populations does not necessarily preclude the presence of benefit in selected population, and there may be a subgroup of patients who can benefit from angiographic follow-up such as those with a large myocardial ischemic territory or those at very high risk of restenosis. Until there is more clinical evidence with respect to follow-up angiography, the decision of whether or not to perform it routinely in selected high-risk population should entail an in-depth discussion with the patient.

Predictors and impact of target vessel revascularization after stent implantation for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: lessons from HORIZONS-AMI

BACKGROUND

Target vessel revascularization (TVR) may compromise the benefits of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) We set out to identify the predictors and examine the impact of TVR after STEMI in patients receiving a coronary stent.

METHODS

In HORIZONS-AMI, 3,602 patients with STEMI were randomized to bivalirudin versus heparin and a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. Stents were implanted in 3,202 patients (2,982 were randomized to bare-metal stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents, and 220 received nonrandomized stents).

RESULTS

Target vessel revascularization occurred in 219 patients (6.9%) at 1 year and in 437 patients (14.4%) at 3 years. Target vessel revascularization was ischemia-driven in 418 cases (95.7%). Target vessel revascularization was due to restenosis in 219 patients (50.1%), definite stent thrombosis in 124 (28.4%), and disease progression in 94 (21.5%). Independent predictors of TVR were more extensive coronary artery disease, smaller vessel size, longer lesion length and the number of stents implanted, post-percutaneous coronary intervention diameter stenosis, symptom onset to balloon time, treatment with bare-metal stents rather than paclitaxel-eluting stents, and scheduled angiographic follow-up. Target vessel revascularization was an independent predictor of subsequent myocardial infarction (hazard ratio [HR] 5.25, P < .0001), ST (HR 5.98, P < .0001), and major bleeding (HR 5.25, P < .0001) but not mortality (HR 0.88, P = .61).

CONCLUSIONS

In HORIZONS-AMI, TVR within 3 years after stent implantation was performed in ~1 of every 7 patients and was associated with more extensive coronary disease, more complex procedures, and bare metal stents. Target vessel revascularization was often due to stent thrombosis and disease progression as well as restenosis and was strongly associated with adverse outcomes but not mortality.