CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

Refractory Angina: From Pathophysiology to New Therapeutic Nonpharmacological Technologies Another Nail in the Coffin for Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsion in Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock Invasive Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association 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 No causal effects of plasma homocysteine levels on the risk of coronary heart disease or acute myocardial infarction: A Mendelian randomization study Invasive Versus Medical Management in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery With a Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Outcome of Applying the ESC 0/1-hour Algorithm in Patients With Suspected Myocardial Infarction Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of DAPT disruption due to non-compliance vs. bleeding after PCI: insights from the PARIS Registry

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.