Jiehui Li1, Xiubin Yang2, Yueqin Tian3, Hongxing Wei3, Marcus Hacker4, Xiang Li5,6, Xiaoli Zhang7,8. 1. Department of Cardiac Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, and National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China. lijiehui@fuwai.com. 2. Department of Cardiac Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, and National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, and National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medizinische Universitat Wien, Wien, Austria. 5. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medizinische Universitat Wien, Wien, Austria. xiang.li@meduniwien.ac.at. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, 100029, Beijing, People's Republic of China. xiang.li@meduniwien.ac.at. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, and National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China. xlzhang68@126.com. 8. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, 100029, Beijing, People's Republic of China. xlzhang68@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes among patients treated by complete coronary revascularization (CCR) or incomplete coronary revascularization (ICR) and no coronary revascularization (NCR) by myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), as well as to evaluate the impact of severity of ischemia on patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) by different therapy strategies. BACKGROUND: Using myocardial ischemia severity determined by MPI guiding treatment strategies for CAD patients still lacks strong clinical evidences. METHODS: Consecutive patients (N = 286) underwent clinical stress-rest SPECT MPI and were retrospectively followed-up. For assessment of outcome of treatment, all patients were classified into three groups (CCR, ICR, and NCR), and further divided into two subgroups as mild ischemia (< 10% ischemic myocardium) and moderate-severe ischemia (≥ 10% ischemic myocardium). All-cause death was defined as the primary endpoint, and the composite of deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization (MACE) as the secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Two-hundred eighty-six patients were followed-up for 46 ± 21 months. Thirty deaths and 65 MACEs were recorded. Patients treated by revascularization had significantly lower MACE (P < .001) but not mortality (P = .158) than patients treated by NCR. Outcomes of CCR related to mortality rate were greater than ICR and NCR (death: P = .019, MACE: P < .001). In patients with moderate-severe ischemia, CCR showed improved outcomes than ICR and NCR (death: P = .034; and MACE: P < .001). In patients with mild ischemia, the outcomes of CCR, ICR, and NCR had no significant difference (P > .05). Multivariate regression Cox analysis revealed that summed difference score [death: HR 1.09 (1.03, 1.15), P = .004] was an independent risk factor and CCR was an independent negative predictor [death: HR 0.31 (0.12, 0.81), P = .017; MACE: HR 0.30 (0.16, 0.57), P < .001]. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of patients treated by CCR were most likely more promising in comparison with treatment of ICR and NCR, especially when patients had over 10% ischemic myocardium.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes among patients treated by complete coronary revascularization (CCR) or incomplete coronary revascularization (ICR) and no coronary revascularization (NCR) by myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), as well as to evaluate the impact of severity of ischemia on patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) by different therapy strategies. BACKGROUND: Using myocardial ischemia severity determined by MPI guiding treatment strategies for CAD patients still lacks strong clinical evidences. METHODS: Consecutive patients (N = 286) underwent clinical stress-rest SPECT MPI and were retrospectively followed-up. For assessment of outcome of treatment, all patients were classified into three groups (CCR, ICR, and NCR), and further divided into two subgroups as mild ischemia (< 10% ischemic myocardium) and moderate-severe ischemia (≥ 10% ischemic myocardium). All-cause death was defined as the primary endpoint, and the composite of deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization (MACE) as the secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Two-hundred eighty-six patients were followed-up for 46 ± 21 months. Thirty deaths and 65 MACEs were recorded. Patients treated by revascularization had significantly lower MACE (P < .001) but not mortality (P = .158) than patients treated by NCR. Outcomes of CCR related to mortality rate were greater than ICR and NCR (death: P = .019, MACE: P < .001). In patients with moderate-severe ischemia, CCR showed improved outcomes than ICR and NCR (death: P = .034; and MACE: P < .001). In patients with mild ischemia, the outcomes of CCR, ICR, and NCR had no significant difference (P > .05). Multivariate regression Cox analysis revealed that summed difference score [death: HR 1.09 (1.03, 1.15), P = .004] was an independent risk factor and CCR was an independent negative predictor [death: HR 0.31 (0.12, 0.81), P = .017; MACE: HR 0.30 (0.16, 0.57), P < .001]. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of patients treated by CCR were most likely more promising in comparison with treatment of ICR and NCR, especially when patients had over 10% ischemic myocardium.
Authors: Vasim Farooq; Patrick W Serruys; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Yaojun Zhang; Christos V Bourantas; David R Holmes; Michael Mack; Ted Feldman; Marie-Claude Morice; Elisabeth Ståhle; Stefan James; Antonio Colombo; Roberto Diletti; Michail I Papafaklis; Ton de Vries; Marie-Angèle Morel; Gerrit Anne van Es; Friedrich W Mohr; Keith D Dawkins; Arie-Pieter Kappetein; Georgios Sianos; Eric Boersma Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Philippe Kolh; Stephan Windecker; Fernando Alfonso; Jean-Philippe Collet; Jochen Cremer; Volkmar Falk; Gerasimos Filippatos; Christian Hamm; Stuart J Head; Peter Jüni; A Pieter Kappetein; Adnan Kastrati; Juhani Knuuti; Ulf Landmesser; Günther Laufer; Franz-Josef Neumann; Dimitrios J Richter; Patrick Schauerte; Miguel Sousa Uva; Giulio G Stefanini; David Paul Taggart; Lucia Torracca; Marco Valgimigli; William Wijns; Adam Witkowski; Jose Luis Zamorano; Stephan Achenbach; Helmut Baumgartner; Jeroen J Bax; Héctor Bueno; Veronica Dean; Christi Deaton; Çetin Erol; Robert Fagard; Roberto Ferrari; David Hasdai; Arno W Hoes; Paulus Kirchhof; Juhani Knuuti; Philippe Kolh; Patrizio Lancellotti; Ales Linhart; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Massimo F Piepoli; Piotr Ponikowski; Per Anton Sirnes; Juan Luis Tamargo; Michal Tendera; Adam Torbicki; William Wijns; Stephan Windecker; Miguel Sousa Uva; Stephan Achenbach; John Pepper; Anelechi Anyanwu; Lina Badimon; Johann Bauersachs; Andreas Baumbach; Farzin Beygui; Nikolaos Bonaros; Marco De Carlo; Christi Deaton; Dobromir Dobrev; Joel Dunning; Eric Eeckhout; Stephan Gielen; David Hasdai; Paulus Kirchhof; Heyman Luckraz; Heiko Mahrholdt; Gilles Montalescot; Domenico Paparella; Ardawan J Rastan; Marcelo Sanmartin; Paul Sergeant; Sigmund Silber; Juan Tamargo; Jurrien ten Berg; Holger Thiele; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Hans-Otto Wagner; Sven Wassmann; Olaf Wendler; Jose Luis Zamorano Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Rory Hachamovitch; Alan Rozanski; Leslee J Shaw; Gregg W Stone; Louise E J Thomson; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Ishac Cohen; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: William E Boden; Robert A O'Rourke; Koon K Teo; Pamela M Hartigan; David J Maron; William J Kostuk; Merril Knudtson; Marcin Dada; Paul Casperson; Crystal L Harris; Bernard R Chaitman; Leslee Shaw; Gilbert Gosselin; Shah Nawaz; Lawrence M Title; Gerald Gau; Alvin S Blaustein; David C Booth; Eric R Bates; John A Spertus; Daniel S Berman; G B John Mancini; William S Weintraub Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 91.245
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
Authors: Abdulhameed Aziz; Anson M Lee; Michael K Pasque; Jennifer S Lawton; Nader Moazami; Ralph J Damiano; Marc R Moon Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anthony H Gershlick; Jamal Nasir Khan; Damian J Kelly; John P Greenwood; Thiagarajah Sasikaran; Nick Curzen; Daniel J Blackman; Miles Dalby; Kathryn L Fairbrother; Winston Banya; Duolao Wang; Marcus Flather; Simon L Hetherington; Andrew D Kelion; Suneel Talwar; Mark Gunning; Roger Hall; Howard Swanton; Gerry P McCann Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 24.094