Korean Circulation Journal

The Korean Society of Cardiology (대한심장학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

"One-Time" versus Staged Multivessel Intervention in Intermediate to Very High-Risk Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes

  • Yu, Xiaofan (Department of Cardiology, The Second Hospital of Dalian Medical University) ;
  • Li, Yi (Department of Cardiology, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region) ;
  • Wang, Qiancheng (Department of Cardiology, The Second Hospital of Dalian Medical University) ;
  • Liang, Ming (Department of Cardiology, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region) ;
  • Xu, Kai (Department of Cardiology, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region) ;
  • Han, Yaling (Department of Cardiology, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region)
  • Received : 2015.12.13
  • Accepted : 2016.05.31
  • Published : 2016.11.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background and Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes of staged versus "one-time" percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in intermediate to very high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel coronary disease (MVD). Subjects and Methods: 1531 NSTE-ACS patients with multivessel PCI and meeting the criteria of intermediate to very high risk were screened from a prospectively registered database obtained from General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region between 2008 and 2012. They were categorized into "one-time" PCI (n=859) and staged PCI (n=672) according to intervention strategy. The primary outcomes included a 3-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization. Results: At 3 years, no significant differences in MACE (20.8% vs. 19.7%, p=0.608) and cardiac death/MI (7.1% vs. 9.1%, p=0.129) were observed between the two groups. After propensity score matching, there was no statistical significance in MACE (18.9% vs. 21.8%, p=0.249); whereas cardiac death/MI was significantly lower in the staged PCI group (7.0% vs.11.1%, p=0.033). Ninety-day landmark analysis showed that the staged PCI group had a lower 90-day incidence of MACE (1.2% vs. 3.3%, p= 0.037) and cardiac death/MI (0.7% vs. 2.6%, p=0.031). For the 90-day to 3-year follow-up period, the incidences of MACE (17.9% vs. 19.1%, p=0.641) and cardiac death/MI (6.3% vs. 8.7%, p=0.191) were similar in both groups. Conclusion: In intermediate- to very high-risk NSTE-ACS patients with MVD, staged PCI is superior to "one-time" PCI in terms of cardiac death/MI.

Keywords

References

  1. Task Force members, Windecker S, Kolh P, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 2014;35:2541-619. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu278
  2. Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2016;37:267-315. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv320
  3. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:e139-228.
  4. Loscalzo J, Longo DL, Fauci AS, et al. Unstable angina and non-STelevation myocardial infarction. In: Cannon CP, editor. Harrison Cardiovascular Medicine. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2013. p. 407-14.
  5. Shishehbor MH, Lauer MS, Singh IM, et al. In unstable angina or non-ST-segment acute coronary syndrome, should patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergo multivessel or culpritonly stenting? J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:849-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2006.10.054
  6. Kim MC, Jeong MH, Ahn Y, et al. What is optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction? Multivessel or culprit-only revascularization. Int J Cardiol 2011;153:148-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.08.044
  7. Brener SJ, Milford-Beland S, Roe MT, et al. Culprit-only or multivessel revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes: an American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Database Registry report. Am Heart J 2008;155:140-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2007.09.007
  8. Zapata GO, Lasave LI, Kozak F, et al. Culprit-only or multivessel percutaneous coronary stenting in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: one-year follow-up. J Interv Cardiol 2009;22:329-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8183.2009.00477.x
  9. Ambrose JA, Winters SL, Stern A, et al. Angiographic morphology and the pathogenesis of unstable angina pectoris. J Am Coll Cardiol 1985;5:609-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(85)80384-3
  10. Kerensky RA, Wade M, Deedwania P, Boden WE, Pepine CJ. Revisiting the culprit lesion in non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Results from the VANQWISH trial angiographic core laboratory. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1456-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(02)01770-9
  11. Goldstein JA, Demetriou D, Grines CL, Pica M, Shoukfeh M, O'Neill WW. Multiple complex coronary plaques in patients with acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2000;343:915-22. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200009283431303
  12. Luczak D, Majda W, Dabrowski R, et al. Prognostic importance of the extent of coronary revascularisation in patients with acute coronary syndromes and multivessel disease: one-year prospective follow-up. Kardiol Pol 2015;73:159-66. https://doi.org/10.5603/KP.a2014.0169
  13. Ma YC, Zuo L, Chen JH, et al. Modified glomerular filtration rate estimating equation for Chinese patients with chronic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006;17:2937-44. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2006040368
  14. XH W, XF L. Diagnostics. 8th ed. Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House; 2013.
  15. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:1581-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.08.001
  16. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation 2007;115:2344-51. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.685313
  17. Dangas GD, George JC, Weintraub W, Popma JJ. Timing of staged percutaneous coronary intervention in multivessel coronary artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010;3:1096-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2010.09.005
  18. Hannan EL, Samadashvili Z, Walford G, et al. Staged versus one-time complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel coronary artery disease patients without ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2013;6:12-20. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.112.974485
  19. Ohashi Y, Kawashima S, Mori T, et al. Soluble CD40 ligand and interleukin-6 in the coronary circulation after acute myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol 2006;112:52-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2005.09.051
  20. Kereiakes DJ, Gurbel PA. Peri-procedural platelet function and platelet inhibition in percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2008;1:111-21.
  21. Chan MY, Andreotti F, Becker RC. Hypercoagulable states in cardiovascular disease. Circulation 2008;118:2286-97. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.778837
  22. Brummel-Ziedins K, Undas A, Orfeo T, et al. Thrombin generation in acute coronary syndrome and stable coronary artery disease: dependence on plasma factor composition. J Thromb Haemost 2008;6:104-10.
  23. Di Mario C, Mara S, Flavio A, et al. Single vs multivessel treatment during primary angioplasty: results of the multicentre randomised HEpacoat for cuLPrit or multivessel stenting for Acute Myocardial Infarction (HELP AMI) Study. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent 2004;6:128-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14628840310030441
  24. Gasior P, Desperak P, Gierlaszynska K, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej 2013;9:136-45.
  25. Zimarino M, Curzen N, Cicchitti V, De Caterina R. The adequacy of myocardial revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Int J Cardiol 2013;168:1748-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.05.004
  26. Jernberg T, Hasvold P, Henriksson M, Hjelm H, Thuresson M, Janzon M. Cardiovascular risk in post-myocardial infarction patients: nationwide real world data demonstrate the importance of a longterm perspective. Eur Heart J 2015;36:1163-70. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu505
  27. Marso SP, McGuire DK. Coronary revascularization strategies in patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease: has the final chapter been written? J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:1198-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.07.022
  28. Elbarouni B, Ismaeil N, Yan RT, et al. Temporal changes in the management and outcome of Canadian diabetic patients hospitalized for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J 2011;162:347-55.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2011.05.020
  29. Abu-Assi E, Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Ribera A, et al. "Do GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary events) risk scores still maintain their performance for predicting mortality in the era of contemporary management of acute coronary syndromes?". Am Heart J 2010;160:826-34.e1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2010.06.053
  30. Reuter PG, Rouchy C, Cattan S, et al. Early invasive strategy in highrisk acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation. The Sisca randomized trial. Int J Cardiol 2015;182:414-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.12.089

Cited by

  1. Staged versus One-Time Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategy for Multivessel Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome vol.46, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2016.46.6.762
  2. Simulation of patient flow in multiple healthcare units using process and data mining techniques for model identification vol.82, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2018.05.004
  3. Effect of Timing of Staged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes vol.10, pp.23, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.121.023129