TY - JOUR
T1 - Routine angiographic follow-up versus clinical follow-up in patients with multivessel coronary artery diseases following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents
T2 - a nested case–control study within a Korean population
AU - Kim, Yong Hoon
AU - Her, Ae Young
AU - Rha, Seung-Woon
AU - Choi, Byoung Geol
AU - Shim, Minsuk
AU - Choi, Se Yeon
AU - Byun, Jae Kyeong
AU - Li, Hu
AU - Kim, Woohyeun
AU - Kang, Jun Hyuk
AU - Choi, Jah Yeon
AU - Park, Eun Jin
AU - Park, Sung Hun
AU - Lee, Sunki
AU - Na, Jin Oh
AU - Choi, Cheol Ung
AU - Lim, Hong Euy
AU - Kim, Eung Ju
AU - Park, Chang Gyu
AU - Seo, Hong Seog
AU - Oh, Dong Joo
PY - 2017/3/7
Y1 - 2017/3/7
N2 - OBJECTIVE: The difference in the usefulness of routine angiographic follow-up (RAF) and clinical follow-up (CF) after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) patients has not been well clarified as yet. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 642 consecutive MVD patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) were enrolled. RAF was performed at 6–9 months after the index PCI (n=374) and others were medically managed and clinically followed (n=268). Patients who experienced clinical events including death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia-driven PCI before 1 year were excluded. To adjust for any potential confounders, a propensity score-matched analysis was carried out using the logistic regression model and two propensity-matched groups (193 pairs, n=386, C-statistic=0.744) were generated. Cumulative clinical outcomes up to 3 years were compared between the RAF group and the CF group. RESULTS: During the 3-year follow-up period, the cumulative incidence of revascularization [target lesion revascularization: odds ratio (OR), 4.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.67–10.6; P=0.001, target vessel revascularization: OR, 4.69; 95% CI, 2.00–11.0; P<0.001] and major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of death, repeat PCI and MI: OR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.62–5.42, P<0.001) were significantly higher in the RAF group compared with the CF group. However, the 3-year incidence of death (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.44–4.53; P=0.558) or MI (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 0.79–8.37; P=0.102) was not different between the two groups. In MVD patients treated with second-generation DESs, the incidence of repeat revascularization (target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization) was not different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: RAF following index PCI with DES in multivessel CAD patients was associated with increased incidence of revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events. However, in MVD patients treated with second-generation DESs, repeat revascularization incidence was similar between two different follow-up strategies up to 3 years.
AB - OBJECTIVE: The difference in the usefulness of routine angiographic follow-up (RAF) and clinical follow-up (CF) after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) patients has not been well clarified as yet. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 642 consecutive MVD patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) were enrolled. RAF was performed at 6–9 months after the index PCI (n=374) and others were medically managed and clinically followed (n=268). Patients who experienced clinical events including death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia-driven PCI before 1 year were excluded. To adjust for any potential confounders, a propensity score-matched analysis was carried out using the logistic regression model and two propensity-matched groups (193 pairs, n=386, C-statistic=0.744) were generated. Cumulative clinical outcomes up to 3 years were compared between the RAF group and the CF group. RESULTS: During the 3-year follow-up period, the cumulative incidence of revascularization [target lesion revascularization: odds ratio (OR), 4.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.67–10.6; P=0.001, target vessel revascularization: OR, 4.69; 95% CI, 2.00–11.0; P<0.001] and major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of death, repeat PCI and MI: OR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.62–5.42, P<0.001) were significantly higher in the RAF group compared with the CF group. However, the 3-year incidence of death (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.44–4.53; P=0.558) or MI (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 0.79–8.37; P=0.102) was not different between the two groups. In MVD patients treated with second-generation DESs, the incidence of repeat revascularization (target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization) was not different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: RAF following index PCI with DES in multivessel CAD patients was associated with increased incidence of revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events. However, in MVD patients treated with second-generation DESs, repeat revascularization incidence was similar between two different follow-up strategies up to 3 years.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014717929&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85014717929&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000479
DO - 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000479
M3 - Article
C2 - 28272162
AN - SCOPUS:85014717929
SN - 0954-6928
JO - Coronary Artery Disease
JF - Coronary Artery Disease
ER -