CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest without ST-Segment Elevation Randomized Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents 2-Year Clinical Outcomes: From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial The performance of non-invasive tests to rule-in and rule-out significant coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable angina: a meta-analysis focused on post-test disease probability Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study Effectiveness-Based Guidelines for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Women—2011 Update: A Guideline From the American Heart Association 2017 ACC/AHA Blood Pressure Treatment Guideline Recommendations and Cardiovascular Risk Qualitative and Mixed Methods Provide Unique Contributions to Outcomes Research

Clinical Trial2018 Jul 7;39(26):2484-2493.

JOURNAL:Eur Heart J. Article Link

A randomized multicentre trial to compare revascularization with optimal medical therapy for the treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions

Werner GS, Martin-Yuste V, EUROCTO trial investigators. Keywords: Chronic coronary occlusion; Percutaneous transluminal intervention; Optimal medical therapy; Seattle angina questionnaire; EQ-5D

ABSTRACT


AIMSThe clinical value of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic coronary total occlusions (CTOs) is not established by randomized trials. This study should compare the benefit of PCI vs. optimal medical therapy (OMT) on the health status in patients with at least one CTO.


METHOD AND RESULTSThree hundred and ninety-six patients were enrolled in a prospective randomized, multicentre, open-label, and controlled clinical trial to compare the treatment by PCI with OMT with a 2:1 randomization ratio. The primary endpoint was the change in health status assessed by the Seattle angina questionnaire (SAQ) between baseline and 12 months follow-up. Fifty-two percent of patients have multi-vessel disease in whom all significant non-occlusive lesions were treated before randomization. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed including 13.4% failed procedures in the PCI group and 7.3% cross-overs in the OMT group. At 12 months, a greater improvement of SAQ subscales was observed with PCI as compared with OMT for angina frequency [5.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75; 8.71; P = 0.003], and quality of life (6.62, 95% CI 1.78-11.46; P = 0.007), reaching the prespecified significance level of 0.01 for the primary endpoint. Physical limitation (P = 0.02) was also improved in the PCI group. Complete freedom from angina was more frequent with PCI 71.6% than OMT 57.8% (P = 0.008). There was no periprocedural death or myocardial infarction. At 12 months, major adverse cardiac events were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONPercutaneous coronary intervention leads to a significant improvement of the health status in patients with stable angina and a CTO as compared with OMT alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONNCT01760083.