CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Comparison in prevalence, predictors, and clinical outcome of VSR versus FWR after acute myocardial infarction: The prospective, multicenter registry MOODY trial-heart rupture analysis Canadian SCAD Cohort Study: Shedding Light on SCAD From a United Front Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes Intravenous Statin Administration During Myocardial Infarction Compared With Oral Post-Infarct Administration Effects of clopidogrel vs. prasugrel vs. ticagrelor on endothelial function, inflammatory parameters, and platelet function in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary artery stenting: a randomized, blinded, parallel study Percutaneous Intervention for Concurrent Chronic Total Occlusions in Patients With STEMI: The EXPLORE Trial

Clinical TrialVolume 74, Issue 25, December 2019

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Long-Term Follow-Up of Complete Versus Lesion-Only Revascularization in STEMI and Multivessel Disease: The CvLPRIT Trial

AH Gershlick, AS Banning, E Parker Keywords: complete revascularization; multivessel disease; myocardial infarction; noninfarct-related lesion; primary percutaneous coronary interventionST-elevation

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - Randomized trials have shown that complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) with multivessel disease results in lower major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (all-cause death, MI, ischemia-driven revascularization, heart failure).

 

OBJECTIVES- The goal of this study was to determine whether the benefits of complete revascularization are sustained long-term and their impact on hard endpoints.

 

METHODS - CvLPRIT (Complete versus Lesion-only Primary PCI Trial) was a randomized trial of complete inpatient revascularization versus infarct-related artery revascularization only at the index admission. Randomized patients have been followed longer-term. The components of the original primary endpoint were collected from physical and electronic patient records, and from local databases for all readmissions.

 

RESULTS- The median follow-up (achieved in >90% patients) from randomization to first event or last follow-up was 5.6 years (0.0 to 7.3 years). The primary MACE endpoint rate at this time point was 24.0% in the complete revascularization group but 37.7% of the infarct-related arteryonly group (hazard ratio: 0.57; 95% confidence interval: 0.37 to 0.87; p = 0.0079). The composite endpoint of all-cause death/MI was 10.0% in the complete revascularization group versus 18.5% in the infarct-related arteryonly group (hazard ratio: 0.47; 95% confidence interval: 0.25 to 0.89; p = 0.0175). In a landmark analysis (from 12 months to final follow-up), there was no significant difference between MACE, death/MI, and individual components of the primary endpoint.

 

CONCLUSIONS - Long-term follow-up of the CvLPRIT trial shows that the significantly lower rate of MACE in the complete revascularization group, previously seen at 12 months, is sustained to a median of 5.6 years. A significant difference in composite all-cause death/MI favoring the complete revascularization was also observed. (Complete versus Lesion-only Primary PCI Trial; ISRCTN70913605)