Search

Purpose: Differences in the utility of routine angiographic follow-up (RAF) and clinical follow-up (CF) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are not well understood. The present study aimed to compare the 3-year clinical outcomes of RAF and CF in AMI patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES). Materials and Methods: A total of 774 consecutive AMI patients who underwent PCI with DES were enrolled. RAF was performed at 6 to 9 months after index PCI (n=425). The remaining patients were medically managed and clinically followed (n=349); symptom-driven events were captured. To adjust for any potential confounders, a propensity score matched analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, and two propensity-matched groups (248 pairs, n=496, C-statistic=0.739) were generated. Cumulative clinical outcomes up to 3 years were compared between RAF and CF groups. Results: During the 3-year follow-up period, the cumulative incidences of revascularization [target lesion revascularization: hazard ratio (HR), 2.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-4.85; p=0.015, target vessel revascularization (TVR): HR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.69-6.58; p=0.001, non-TVR: HR, 5.64; 95% CI, 1.90-16.6; p=0.002] and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; HR, 3.32; 95% CI, 1.92-5.73; p<0.001) were significantly higher in the RAF group than the CF group. However, the 3-year incidences of death and myocardial infarction were not different between the two groups. Conclusion: RAF following index PCI with DES in AMI patients was associated with increased incidences of revascularization and MACE. Therefore, CF seems warranted for asymptomatic patients after PCI for AMI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Calcium channel blockers diltiazem and nitrate have been used as selective coronary vasodilators for patients with significant coronary artery spasm (CAS). However, no study has compared the efficacy of diltiazem alone versus diltiazem with nitrate for long-term clinical outcomes in patients with CAS. Materials and Methods: A total of 2741 consecutive patients without significant coronary artery disease with positive CAS by acetylcholine (Ach) provocation test between November 2004 and May 2014 were enrolled. Significant CAS was defined as a narrowing of >70% by incremental intracoronary injection of 20, 50, and 100 µg of Ach into the left coronary artery. Patients were assigned to either the diltiazem group (n=842) or the dual group (diltiazem with nitrate, n=1899) at physician discretion. To adjust for potential confounders, a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed using the logistic regression model. After PSM analysis, two well-balanced groups (811 pairs, n=1622, C-statistic=0.708) were generated. Results: At 5 years, there were similar incidences in primary endpoints, including mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and recurrent angina requiring repeat coronary angiography between the two groups. Diltiazem alone was not an independent predictor for major adverse cardiovascular events or recurrent angina requiring repeat coronary angiography. Conclusion: Despite the expected improvement of endothelial function and the relief of CAS, the combination of diltiazem and nitrate treatment was not superior to diltiazem alone in reducing mortality and cardiovascular events up to 5 years in patients with significant CAS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]