PURPOSE: Coronary revascularisation is the treatment of choice in patients with stable angina who have significant stenoses. From a pathophysiological point of view, however, mitigation of angina is to be expected only in the presence of reversible ischaemia. Therefore it was the aim of this study to examine the effect of revascularisation on stable angina in relation to the myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) pattern prior to intervention. METHODS: Three hundred and eighty-four patients (58.0+/-8.8 years) referred for angiography underwent MPI. Prior to MPI and at 2-year follow-up, patients were classified as having typical angina, atypical angina, non-cardiac chest pain or no pain, and the severity of chest pain was graded according to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) criteria. The patients themselves estimated their pain on a visual analogue scale. Management was based on symptoms and angiographic findings, since the results of MPI were not communicated. RESULTS: Among the 240 patients who were not revascularised, 79% had typical or atypical angina at study entrance versus 40% at follow-up. In comparison, 93% of the 144 revascularised patients had typical or atypical angina before intervention versus only 36% at follow-up. This additional advantage of invasive therapy was present only in patients with reversible defects; revascularisation had no additional effect in patients with normal perfusion or irreversible defects. Similarly, additional, significant reductions in CCS class and visual analogue score were observed exclusively in patients with reversible defects. CONCLUSION: In patients referred for coronary angiography owing to known or suspected stable angina, revascularisation was significantly more effective than medical treatment exclusively in patients with reversible ischaemia.
PURPOSE: Coronary revascularisation is the treatment of choice in patients with stable angina who have significant stenoses. From a pathophysiological point of view, however, mitigation of angina is to be expected only in the presence of reversible ischaemia. Therefore it was the aim of this study to examine the effect of revascularisation on stable angina in relation to the myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) pattern prior to intervention. METHODS: Three hundred and eighty-four patients (58.0+/-8.8 years) referred for angiography underwent MPI. Prior to MPI and at 2-year follow-up, patients were classified as having typical angina, atypical angina, non-cardiac chest pain or no pain, and the severity of chest pain was graded according to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) criteria. The patients themselves estimated their pain on a visual analogue scale. Management was based on symptoms and angiographic findings, since the results of MPI were not communicated. RESULTS: Among the 240 patients who were not revascularised, 79% had typical or atypical angina at study entrance versus 40% at follow-up. In comparison, 93% of the 144 revascularised patients had typical or atypical angina before intervention versus only 36% at follow-up. This additional advantage of invasive therapy was present only in patients with reversible defects; revascularisation had no additional effect in patients with normal perfusion or irreversible defects. Similarly, additional, significant reductions in CCS class and visual analogue score were observed exclusively in patients with reversible defects. CONCLUSION: In patients referred for coronary angiography owing to known or suspected stable angina, revascularisation was significantly more effective than medical treatment exclusively in patients with reversible ischaemia.
Authors: D S Berman; H Kiat; J D Friedman; F P Wang; K van Train; L Matzer; J Maddahi; G Germano Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1993-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: S Yusuf; D Zucker; P Peduzzi; L D Fisher; T Takaro; J W Kennedy; K Davis; T Killip; E Passamani; R Norris Journal: Lancet Date: 1994-08-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A H Gershlick; M de Belder; J Chambers; D Hackett; R Keal; A Kelion; S Neubauer; D J Pennell; M Rothman; M Signy; P Wilde Journal: Heart Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: M Bashar Al-Housni; Fiona Hutchings; Miles Dalby; Michael Dubowitz; Richard Grocott-Mason; Charles D J Ilsley; Mark Mason; Andrew G Mitchell; Andrew D Kelion Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-07-09 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Jacobijne J Wiersma; Hein J Verberne; Mieke D Trip; Wik L ten Holt; Berthe L F van Eck-Smit; Jan J Piek; Jan G P Tijssen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-07-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jane Angel Simonsen; Hans Mickley; Allan Johansen; Søren Hess; Anders Thomassen; Oke Gerke; Lisette O Jensen; Jesper Hallas; Werner Vach; Poul F Hoilund-Carlsen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 2.692