Literature DB >> 12849656

Long-term outcome of patients with silent versus symptomatic ischemia six months after percutaneous coronary intervention and stenting.

Michael J Zellweger1, Markus Weinbacher, Andreas W Zutter, Raban V Jeger, Jan Mueller-Brand, Christoph Kaiser, Peter T Buser, Matthias E Pfisterer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the incidence of silent ischemia versus symptomatic ischemia six months after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and its impact on prognosis and to test the utility of myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), or MPS, for risk stratification in these patients.
BACKGROUND: Silent ischemia is frequent after PCI. However, little is known about silent ischemia and long-term outcome after PCI and stenting.
METHODS: In 356 consecutive patients with successful PCI and stenting and follow-up MPS after six months, long-term follow-up (4.1 +/- 0.3 years) was performed. The MPS images were interpreted by defining summed stress, rest, and difference scores (summed difference score [SDS] = extent of ischemia) and related to symptoms and outcome. Critical events included cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.
RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (23%) had evidence of target vessel ischemia, which was silent in 62%. The only independent predictor of silent ischemia was SDS (odds ratio 0.64, p = 0.001). During follow-up, 67 critical events occurred. For patients with an SDS of 0, 1-4, and >4, the critical event rates were 17%, 29%, and 69%, respectively. Similarly, patients without ischemia, silent ischemia, and symptomatic ischemia had 17%, 32%, and 52% of critical events, respectively. Diabetes (relative risk 1.98, p = 0.03) and SDS (relative risk 1.2, p < 0.001) were independent predictors of critical events. The MPS image added incremental information for the prediction of critical events.
CONCLUSIONS: Six months after PCI and stenting, 23% of patients had target vessel ischemia, which was silent in 62%. Silent ischemia predicted a worse outcome than did no ischemia and tended to have a better outcome than symptomatic ischemia. This was closely related to the extent of ischemia. The SDS added incremental value to pre-scan findings with respect to diagnosis and prognosis, indicating the utility of MPS for risk stratification after PCI and stenting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12849656     DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(03)00557-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  25 in total

Review 1.  Prognostic value of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT.

Authors:  Leslee J Shaw; Ami E Iskandrian
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.952

2.  Diagnostic value of myocardial SPECT to detect in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation.

Authors:  Hyo Eun Park; Bon-Kwon Koo; Kyung-Woo Park; Jin Chul Paeng; Hae-Young Lee; Hyun-Jae Kang; Hyo-Soo Kim
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 2.357

3.  The role of radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging for asymptomatic individuals.

Authors:  Robert C Hendel; Brian G Abbott; Timothy M Bateman; Ron Blankstein; Dennis A Calnon; Jeffrey A Leppo; Jamshid Maddahi; Matthew M Schumaecker; Leslee J Shaw; R Parker Ward; David G Wolinsky
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  Gated myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography in the clinical outcomes utilizing revascularization and aggressive drug evaluation (COURAGE) trial, Veterans Administration Cooperative study no. 424.

Authors:  Leslee J Shaw; Gary V Heller; Paul Casperson; Romalisa Miranda-Peats; Piotr Slomka; John Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Ronald Schwartz; William S Weintraub; David J Maron; Marcin Dada; Spencer King; Koon Teo; Pamela Hartigan; William E Boden; Robert A O'Rourke; Daniel S Berman
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Randomized comparison between provisional and routine kissing-balloon technique after main vessel crossover stenting for coronary bifurcation lesions.

Authors:  Masahiro Yamawaki; Masaki Fujita; Shinya Sasaki; Masanori Tsurugida; Mamoru Nanasato; Motoharu Araki; Keisuke Hirano; Yoshiaki Ito; Reiko Tsukahara; Toshiya Muramatsu
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 2.037

6.  Non-invasive diagnosis of in stent stenosis by stress 99m technetium tetrofosmin myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Abdou Elhendy; Arend F L Schinkel; Ron T van Domberg; Jeroen J Bax; Roelf Valkema; Don Poldermans
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2006-04-21       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 7.  Assessing the prognostic implications of myocardial perfusion studies: identification of patients at risk vs patients who may benefit from intervention?

Authors:  Paul Cremer; Rory Hachamovitch
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.931

8.  Peri-infarct ischaemia assessed by cardiovascular MRI: comparison with quantitative perfusion single photon emission CT imaging.

Authors:  E Gerbaud; H Cochet; E Bullier; C Ragot; S H Gilbert; H Douard; Y Pucheu; F Laurent; P Coste; L Bordenave; M Montaudon
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Single resting hsTnT level predicts abnormal myocardial stress test in acute chest pain patients with normal initial standard troponin.

Authors:  Waleed Ahmed; Christopher L Schlett; Shanmugam Uthamalingam; Quynh A Truong; Wolfgang Koenig; Ian S Rogers; Ron Blankstein; John T Nagurney; Ahmed Tawakol; James L Januzzi; Udo Hoffmann
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2013-01

10.  Prognostic validation of a 17-segment score derived from a 20-segment score for myocardial perfusion SPECT interpretation.

Authors:  Daniel S Berman; Aiden Abidov; Xingping Kang; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Maria G Sciammarella; Ishac Cohen; James Gerlach; Parker B Waechter; Guido Germano; Rory Hachamovitch
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.952

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.