OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between the completeness of revascularisation by percutaneous coronary intervention and the one-year occurrence of adverse cardiac events in patients with multivessel disease. PATIENTS: Patients with stable or unstable angina pectoris, or with exercise-induced ischaemia, were enrolled in the Coronary Angioplasty versus Bypass Revascularisation Investigation (CABRI). METHODS: In CABRI, patients were randomised to coronary bypass grafting (CABG; n=513) or angioplasty (PTCA; n=541). Revascularisation in patients randomised to PTCA was defined as complete if no lesions with a diameter stenosis <50% remained post-procedure. Patients with complete revascularisation were distinguished from those with one, two, and three or more remaining lesions, respectively. Differences in baseline characteristics and in the one-year occurrence of death, myocardial infarction, (re)CABG, and (re)PTCA between these subgroups were evaluated. Comparisons were made with patients randomised to CABG. RESULTS:Complete revascularisation was obtained in 148 patients randomised toPTCA (27%). In 147 (27%) cases one lesion remained, while there were 122 (23%) and 119 (22%) patients with two and three or more remaining lesions, respectively. Five (1%) patients could not be classified. The one-year rates of either death or MI were 9.5%, 5.4%, 8.2%, and 12.6% in the respective PTCA subgroups (p=0.225), and 6.2% in patients randomised to CABG (comparison with three or more remaining lesions after PTCA: p=0.017). The percentages of repeat interventions during one-year follow-up were 29.7%, 29.3%, 39.3%, and 51.3% (p<0.001), much higher than after CABG (3.5%; p<0.001). CONCLUSION:Complete revascularisation by PTCA in multivessel coronary disease did not result in a lower death or MI rate compared with incomplete revascularisation. Overall the patient's prognosis after PTCA is similar to CABG, but patients with three or more remaining lesions after PTCA had a worse prognosis than CABG patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between the completeness of revascularisation by percutaneous coronary intervention and the one-year occurrence of adverse cardiac events in patients with multivessel disease. PATIENTS: Patients with stable or unstable angina pectoris, or with exercise-induced ischaemia, were enrolled in the Coronary Angioplasty versus Bypass Revascularisation Investigation (CABRI). METHODS: In CABRI, patients were randomised to coronary bypass grafting (CABG; n=513) or angioplasty (PTCA; n=541). Revascularisation in patients randomised to PTCA was defined as complete if no lesions with a diameter stenosis <50% remained post-procedure. Patients with complete revascularisation were distinguished from those with one, two, and three or more remaining lesions, respectively. Differences in baseline characteristics and in the one-year occurrence of death, myocardial infarction, (re)CABG, and (re)PTCA between these subgroups were evaluated. Comparisons were made with patients randomised to CABG. RESULTS: Complete revascularisation was obtained in 148 patients randomised to PTCA (27%). In 147 (27%) cases one lesion remained, while there were 122 (23%) and 119 (22%) patients with two and three or more remaining lesions, respectively. Five (1%) patients could not be classified. The one-year rates of either death or MI were 9.5%, 5.4%, 8.2%, and 12.6% in the respective PTCA subgroups (p=0.225), and 6.2% in patients randomised to CABG (comparison with three or more remaining lesions after PTCA: p=0.017). The percentages of repeat interventions during one-year follow-up were 29.7%, 29.3%, 39.3%, and 51.3% (p<0.001), much higher than after CABG (3.5%; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Complete revascularisation by PTCA in multivessel coronary disease did not result in a lower death or MI rate compared with incomplete revascularisation. Overall the patient's prognosis after PTCA is similar to CABG, but patients with three or more remaining lesions after PTCA had a worse prognosis than CABG patients.
Authors: M R Bell; B J Gersh; H V Schaff; D R Holmes; L D Fisher; E L Alderman; W O Myers; L S Parsons; G S Reeder Journal: Circulation Date: 1992-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: S J Pocock; R A Henderson; A F Rickards; J R Hampton; S B King; C W Hamm; J Puel; W Hueb; J J Goy; A Rodriguez Journal: Lancet Date: 1995-11-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: P W Serruys; B van Hout; H Bonnier; V Legrand; E Garcia; C Macaya; E Sousa; W van der Giessen; A Colombo; R Seabra-Gomes; F Kiemeneij; P Ruygrok; J Ormiston; H Emanuelsson; J Fajadet; M Haude; S Klugmann; M A Morel Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-08-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: P W Serruys; P de Jaegere; F Kiemeneij; C Macaya; W Rutsch; G Heyndrickx; H Emanuelsson; J Marco; V Legrand; P Materne Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-08-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M J Cowley; M Vandermael; E J Topol; P L Whitlow; L S Dean; T M Bulle; S G Ellis Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1993-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Vinayak Nagaraja; Sze-Yuan Ooi; James Nolan; Adrian Large; Mark De Belder; Peter Ludman; Rodrigo Bagur; Nick Curzen; Takashi Matsukage; Fuminobu Yoshimachi; Chun Shing Kwok; Colin Berry; Mamas A Mamas Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 5.501