INTRODUCTION: Borderline coronary lesions are responsible for about 80% of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Statins have been found to improve long-term prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease due to plaque stabilization. There are no reports on the frequency of new events caused by progression of borderline lesions in patients with (ACS). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a method of mechanical stabilization of borderline coronary lesions could be an alternative to pharmacological approach. AIM: To compare the efficacy of pharmacological and mechanical stabilization of borderline plaques (DS = 40-60%) in patients with ACS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with ACS and angiographically documented borderline lesions, related to the ACS or located in other coronary arteries were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive pharmacotherapy without intervention or to undergo PCI. The primary end-point was rate of target lesion revascularization with PCI or coronary bypass grafting (CABG) caused by progression of coronary stenosis or in-stent restenosis/thrombosis. The secondary endpoint was incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at long-term follow-up (death, ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome--STEACS and non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome-- NSTEACS). RESULTS: Pharmacological stabilization was used in 50 patients, mean age 56.7 +/- 9.14 years, whereas 44 patients, mean age 57.2 +/- 10.4 years, underwent plaque stabilization with PCI. At follow-up (mean 521 days) target lesion revascularization was performed in 3 patients, previously receiving pharmacotherapy, due to progression of coronary stenosis, and in 3 patients, after prior PCI, due to in-stent restenosis (7% vs. 8%, p = NS). The rate of MACE in both groups was also similar (6% vs. 5%, p = NS). CONCLUSION: There were no differences between mechanical and pharmacological stabilization of borderline coronary lesions in patients with acute coronary syndromes.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Borderline coronary lesions are responsible for about 80% of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Statins have been found to improve long-term prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease due to plaque stabilization. There are no reports on the frequency of new events caused by progression of borderline lesions in patients with (ACS). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a method of mechanical stabilization of borderline coronary lesions could be an alternative to pharmacological approach. AIM: To compare the efficacy of pharmacological and mechanical stabilization of borderline plaques (DS = 40-60%) in patients with ACS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with ACS and angiographically documented borderline lesions, related to the ACS or located in other coronary arteries were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive pharmacotherapy without intervention or to undergo PCI. The primary end-point was rate of target lesion revascularization with PCI or coronary bypass grafting (CABG) caused by progression of coronary stenosis or in-stent restenosis/thrombosis. The secondary endpoint was incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at long-term follow-up (death, ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome--STEACS and non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome-- NSTEACS). RESULTS: Pharmacological stabilization was used in 50 patients, mean age 56.7 +/- 9.14 years, whereas 44 patients, mean age 57.2 +/- 10.4 years, underwent plaque stabilization with PCI. At follow-up (mean 521 days) target lesion revascularization was performed in 3 patients, previously receiving pharmacotherapy, due to progression of coronary stenosis, and in 3 patients, after prior PCI, due to in-stent restenosis (7% vs. 8%, p = NS). The rate of MACE in both groups was also similar (6% vs. 5%, p = NS). CONCLUSION: There were no differences between mechanical and pharmacological stabilization of borderline coronary lesions in patients with acute coronary syndromes.