Literature DB >> 15389234

Complete versus culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in multivessel disease: a randomized comparison.

Alexander J J Ijsselmuiden1, JanPaul Ezechiels, Iris C D Westendorp, Jan G P Tijssen, Ferdinand Kiemeneij, Ton Slagboom, Ron van der Wieken, GeertJan Tangelder, Patrick W Serruys, GertJan Laarman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety, efficacy, and costs of complete versus "culprit" vessel revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).
METHODS: Patients with multivessel disease and an identified culprit vessel were randomly assigned to complete revascularization of vessels > or =50% stenoses (n = 108) versus revascularization limited to the culprit vessel (n = 111). The primary end point, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), were defined as cardiac or noncardiac death, myocardial infarction, need for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and repeat PCI up to 1 year.
RESULTS: Despite equal MACE at 24 hours (6.3% vs 7.4%), strategy success was higher in the culprit vessel than in the complete revascularization group (93.7% vs 81.5%, P =.007). MACE rates at 1 month (14.4% vs 9.3%), 1 year (32.4% vs 26.9%), and 4.6 +/- 1.2 years (40.4% vs 34.6%) were similar in both groups. Repeat PCI was performed more often in the culprit vessel group (31.2% vs 21.2%, P =.06). A lower consumption of medical material was associated with lower procedural costs in the culprit vessel group (5784 vs 7315 Euros; P <.001). However, between 1 year and the end of follow-up, costs had equalized in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Complete versus culprit vessel revascularization in multivessel coronary disease treated with PCI was associated with a lower strategy success rate, similar MACE rates, and initially higher costs. However, over the long term, more repeat PCIs were conducted in patients treated by culprit revascularization only, mostly because of the need to treat lesions initially left untreated. As a consequence, incremental costs had equalized within 1 year. The decision of whether to perform culprit vessel or complete revascularization can be made on an individual basis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15389234     DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.03.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  23 in total

1.  Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable angina: a common approach? Lessons learned from the EHS PCI registry.

Authors:  Timm Bauer; Helge Möllmann; Uwe Zeymer; Matthias Hochadel; Holger Nef; Franz Weidinger; Ralf Zahn; Christian W Hamm; Jean Marco; Anselm K Gitt
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Treating patients with non-STEMI: stent the culprit artery only or address all lesions?

Authors:  Mehdi H Shishehbor; Deepak L Bhatt
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2008-02

3.  Complete versus incomplete revascularization for treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease in the drug-eluting stent era.

Authors:  Young Bin Song; Sang-Yeub Lee; Joo-Yong Hahn; Seung-Hyuk Choi; Jin-Ho Choi; Sang Hoon Lee; Kyung Pyo Hong; Jeong Euy Park; Hyeon-Cheol Gwon
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2011-07-16       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Completeness of revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Yader Sandoval; Emmanouil S Brilakis; Santiago Garcia
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  Impact of incomplete revascularization of coronary artery disease on long-term cardiac outcomes. Retrospective comparison of angiographic and myocardial perfusion imaging criteria for completeness.

Authors:  Jiehui Li; Thomas H Schindler; Shubin Qiao; Hongxing Wei; Yueqin Tian; Weixue Wang; Xiaoli Zhang; Xiubin Yang; Xiujie Liu
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 6.  Complete versus incomplete coronary revascularization: definitions, assessment and outcomes.

Authors:  Prakriti Gaba; Bernard J Gersh; Ziad A Ali; Jeffrey W Moses; Gregg W Stone
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2020-10-16       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 7.  Complete versus culprit-only revascularisation in ST elevation myocardial infarction with multi-vessel disease.

Authors:  Claudio A Bravo; Sameer A Hirji; Deepak L Bhatt; Rachna Kataria; David P Faxon; E Magnus Ohman; Kevin L Anderson; Akil I Sidi; Michael H Sketch; Stuart W Zarich; Asishana A Osho; Christian Gluud; Henning Kelbæk; Thomas Engstrøm; Dan Eik Høfsten; James M Brennan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-05-03

8.  Impact of incomplete revascularization on long-term mortality after coronary stenting.

Authors:  Chuntao Wu; Anne-Marie Dyer; Spencer B King; Gary Walford; David R Holmes; Nicholas J Stamato; Ferdinand J Venditti; Samin K Sharma; Icilma Fergus; Alice K Jacobs; Edward L Hannan
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 6.546

9.  Troponin T elevation and prognosis after multivessel compared with single-vessel elective percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  M B Nienhuis; J P Ottervanger; J-H E Dambrink; L D Dikkeschei; H Suryapranata; A W J van 't Hof; J C A Hoorntje; M J de Boer; A T M Gosselink; F Zijlstra
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.380

10.  Incomplete revascularization is associated with greater risk of long-term mortality after stenting in the era of first generation drug-eluting stents.

Authors:  Chuntao Wu; Anne-Marie Dyer; Gary Walford; David R Holmes; Spencer B King; Nicholas J Stamato; Samin Sharma; Alice K Jacobs; Ferdinand J Venditti; Edward L Hannan
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 2.778

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.