Pre-discharge exercise test for evaluation of patients with complete or incomplete revascularization following primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a DANAMI-2 sub-study

Risk factors for inspiratory muscle weakness in coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) are susceptible to lung function problems caused by respiratory muscle weakness. Many CHD patients show complications of respiratory muscle weakness, but the risk factors remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the risk factors for inspiratory muscle weakness in CHD.

METHODS

This study enrolled 249 patients with CHD who underwent maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) measurement between April 2021 and March 2022.According to the percentage of MIP (MIP/Predicted normal value [PNV]), patients were divided into the inspiratory muscle weakness (IMW) (n = 149) (MIP/PNV<70%) and control groups (n = 100) (MIP/PNV≥70༅). Clinical information and MIP of the two groups were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The incidence of IMW was 59.8% (n = 149). Age (P < 0.001); history of heart failure (P < 0.001), hypertension (P = 0.04), and peripheral artery disease (PAD) (P = 0.001); left ventricular end-systolic dimension (P = 0.035); presence of segmental motion abnormality of the ventricular wall (P = 0.030); and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (P = 0.001) and N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels (P < 0.001) in the IMW group were significantly higher than those in the control group. The proportion of anatomic complete revascularization (P = 0.009), left ventricular ejection fraction (P = 0.010), and alanine transaminase (P = 0.014) and triglycerides levels (P = 0.014) in the IMW group were significantly lower than those in the control group. Logistic regression analysis showed that anatomic complete revascularization (OR=0.350, 95%CI 0.157-0.781) and NT-proBNP level (OR=1.002, 95%CI 1.000-1.004) were independent risk factors for IMW.

CONCLUSION

The independent risk factors for decreased IMW in patients with CAD were anatomic incomplete revascularization and NT-proBNP level.

Complete revascularization determined by myocardial perfusion imaging could improve the outcomes of patients with stable coronary artery disease, compared with incomplete revascularization and no revascularization

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes among patients treated by complete coronary revascularization (CCR) or incomplete coronary revascularization (ICR) and no coronary revascularization (NCR) by myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), as well as to evaluate the impact of severity of ischemia on patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) by different therapy strategies.

BACKGROUND

Using myocardial ischemia severity determined by MPI guiding treatment strategies for CAD patients still lacks strong clinical evidences.

METHODS

Consecutive patients (N = 286) underwent clinical stress-rest SPECT MPI and were retrospectively followed-up. For assessment of outcome of treatment, all patients were classified into three groups (CCR, ICR, and NCR), and further divided into two subgroups as mild ischemia (< 10% ischemic myocardium) and moderate-severe ischemia (≥ 10% ischemic myocardium). All-cause death was defined as the primary endpoint, and the composite of deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization (MACE) as the secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Two-hundred eighty-six patients were followed-up for 46 ± 21 months. Thirty deaths and 65 MACEs were recorded. Patients treated by revascularization had significantly lower MACE (P < .001) but not mortality (P = .158) than patients treated by NCR. Outcomes of CCR related to mortality rate were greater than ICR and NCR (death: P = .019, MACE: P < .001). In patients with moderate-severe ischemia, CCR showed improved outcomes than ICR and NCR (death: P = .034; and MACE: P < .001). In patients with mild ischemia, the outcomes of CCR, ICR, and NCR had no significant difference (P > .05). Multivariate regression Cox analysis revealed that summed difference score [death: HR 1.09 (1.03, 1.15), P = .004] was an independent risk factor and CCR was an independent negative predictor [death: HR 0.31 (0.12, 0.81), P = .017; MACE: HR 0.30 (0.16, 0.57), P < .001].

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of patients treated by CCR were most likely more promising in comparison with treatment of ICR and NCR, especially when patients had over 10% ischemic myocardium.