open access

Vol 25, No 5 (2018)
Original articles — Interventional cardiology
Published online: 2018-08-24
Get Citation

Clinical impact of routine angiographic follow-up after percutaneous coronary interventions on unprotected left main

Cristina Aurigemma, Francesco Burzotta, Italo Porto, Giampaolo Niccoli, Antonio Maria Leone, Filippo Crea, Carlo Trani
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2018.0092
·
Pubmed: 30155864
·
Cardiol J 2018;25(5):582-588.

open access

Vol 25, No 5 (2018)
Original articles — Interventional cardiology
Published online: 2018-08-24

Abstract

Background: Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) on unprotected left main (ULM) represent a complex subset. The role of routine coronary angiography at follow up in this subset remains debated.

Methods: At the documented center, all patients undergoing successful PCI on ULM lesions performing angiographic follow-up is suggested, but adherence to such a recommendation is inhomogeneous. Consecutive patients undergoing DES PCI on ULM were enrolled and experienced no adverse events during the first 6 months. Patients were then allocated to two groups: those undergoing routine control angiography (CA) and those undergoing clinical follow-up (CF). Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction and urgent repeat target vessel revascularization.

Results: A total of 190 patients underwent successful DES implantation on ULM and the study population was without early events. CA was performed at 6 months after the index procedure in 91 (48%) patients. After 35 ± 21 months, MACE rates were significantly more common in the CF group as compared with the CA group (16.2% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.009). At multivariable analysis, CA was associated with reduced MACE risk (HR 0.13, 95% CI 0.1–0.7, p = 0.028). Of note, this was mainly driven by higher cardiac death rate in those undergoing CF than in those undergoing CA (p = 0.01).

Conclusions: CA after complex PCI, such as ULM PCI, is associated with reduced MACE. Such an observation calls for appropriately designed randomized trials.

Abstract

Background: Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) on unprotected left main (ULM) represent a complex subset. The role of routine coronary angiography at follow up in this subset remains debated.

Methods: At the documented center, all patients undergoing successful PCI on ULM lesions performing angiographic follow-up is suggested, but adherence to such a recommendation is inhomogeneous. Consecutive patients undergoing DES PCI on ULM were enrolled and experienced no adverse events during the first 6 months. Patients were then allocated to two groups: those undergoing routine control angiography (CA) and those undergoing clinical follow-up (CF). Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction and urgent repeat target vessel revascularization.

Results: A total of 190 patients underwent successful DES implantation on ULM and the study population was without early events. CA was performed at 6 months after the index procedure in 91 (48%) patients. After 35 ± 21 months, MACE rates were significantly more common in the CF group as compared with the CA group (16.2% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.009). At multivariable analysis, CA was associated with reduced MACE risk (HR 0.13, 95% CI 0.1–0.7, p = 0.028). Of note, this was mainly driven by higher cardiac death rate in those undergoing CF than in those undergoing CA (p = 0.01).

Conclusions: CA after complex PCI, such as ULM PCI, is associated with reduced MACE. Such an observation calls for appropriately designed randomized trials.

Get Citation

Keywords

coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary interventions, unprotected left main

About this article
Title

Clinical impact of routine angiographic follow-up after percutaneous coronary interventions on unprotected left main

Journal

Cardiology Journal

Issue

Vol 25, No 5 (2018)

Pages

582-588

Published online

2018-08-24

DOI

10.5603/CJ.a2018.0092

Pubmed

30155864

Bibliographic record

Cardiol J 2018;25(5):582-588.

Keywords

coronary angiography
percutaneous coronary interventions
unprotected left main

Authors

Cristina Aurigemma
Francesco Burzotta
Italo Porto
Giampaolo Niccoli
Antonio Maria Leone
Filippo Crea
Carlo Trani

References (23)
  1. Serruys PW, de Jaegere P, Kiemeneij F, et al. A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1994; 331(8): 489–495.
  2. Fischman DL, Leon MB, Baim DS, et al. A randomized comparison of coronary-stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent Restenosis Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1994; 331(8): 496–501.
  3. de Bono D. Complications of diagnostic cardiac catheterisation: results from 34,041 patients in the United Kingdom confidential enquiry into cardiac catheter complications. Br Heart J. 1993; 70(3): 297–300.
  4. Johnson LW, Krone R. Cardiac catheterization 1991: a report of the Registry of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCA&I). Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1993; 28(3): 219–220.
  5. Devlin G, Lazzam L, Schwartz L. Mortality related to diagnostic cardiac catheterization. Int J Cardiac Imaging. 1997; 13(5): 379–384.
  6. Deshpande NV, Serruys PW. Asymptomatic restenosis: should we (re)intervene? An unresolved dilemma. Am Heart J. 1998; 136(4 Pt 1): 576–577.
  7. Uchida T, Popma J, Stone GW, et al. The clinical impact of routine angiographic follow-up in randomized trials of drug-eluting stents: a critical assessment of "oculostenotic" reintervention in patients with intermediate lesions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 3(4): 403–411.
  8. Stone GW, Parise H, Witzenbichler B, et al. Selection criteria for drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents and the impact of routine angiographic follow-up: 2-year insights from the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 56(19): 1597–1604.
  9. Berg Jt, Kelder J, Suttorp M, et al. Influence of planned six-month follow-up angiography on late outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38(4): 1061–1069.
  10. Patel MR, Bailey SR, Bonow RO, et al. ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59(22): 1995–2027.
  11. Weintraub W, Ghazzal Z, Douglas J, et al. Usefulness of the Substitution of Nonangiographic End Points (Death, Acute Myocardial Infarction, Coronary Bypass and/or Repeat Angioplasty) for Follow-Up Coronary Angiography in Evaluating the Success of Coronary Angioplasty in Patients With Angina Pectoris. Am J Cardiol. 1998; 81(4): 382–386.
  12. Rupprecht HJ, Espinola-Klein C, Erbel R, et al. Impact of routine angiographic follow-up after angioplasty. Am Heart J. 1998; 136(4 Pt 1): 613–619.
  13. Schühlen H, Kastrati A, Mehilli J, et al. Restenosis detected by routine angiographic follow-up and late mortality after coronary stent placement. Am Heart J. 2004; 147(2): 317–322.
  14. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Task Force for Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction; Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60(16): 1581–1598.
  15. Cassese S, Byrne RA, Schulz S, et al. Prognostic role of restenosis in 10 004 patients undergoing routine control angiography after coronary stenting. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36(2): 94–99.
  16. Ruygrok PN, Melkert R, Morel MA, et al. Does angiography six months after coronary intervention influence management and outcome? Benestent II Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 34(5): 1507–1511.
  17. Lansky AJ, Brar SS, Yaqub M, et al. Impact of routine angiographic follow-up after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in the SPIRIT III randomized trial at three years. Am J Cardiol. 2012; 110(1): 21–29.
  18. Pinto DS, Stone GW, Ellis SG, et al. TAXUS-IV Investigators. Impact of routine angiographic follow-up on the clinical benefits of paclitaxel-eluting stents: results from the TAXUS-IV trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48(1): 32–36.
  19. Shiomi H, Morimoto T, Kitaguchi S, et al. The ReACT Trial: Randomized Evaluation of Routine Follow-up Coronary Angiography After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(2): 109–117.
  20. Biondi-Zoccai GGL, Giraudi E, Moretti C, et al. Impact of routine angiographic follow-up after percutaneous coronary drug-eluting stenting for unprotected left main disease: the Turin Registry. Clin Res Cardiol. 2010; 99(4): 235–242.
  21. Alfonso F, Byrne RA, Rivero F, et al. Current treatment of in-stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63(24): 2659–2673.
  22. Park SJ, Kang SJ, Virmani R, et al. In-stent neoatherosclerosis: a final common pathway of late stent failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59(23): 2051–2057.
  23. D'Ascenzo F, Iannaccone M, Pavani M, et al. Planned angiographic control versus clinical follow-up for patients with unprotected left main stem stenosis treated with second generation drug-eluting stents: A propensity score with matching analysis from the FAILS (failure in left main with second generation stents-Cardiogroup III Study). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 [Epub ahead of print].

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl