Sex-specific associations of myocardial perfusion imaging with outcomes in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) is an established diagnostic technique for inducible ischemia in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). Some MPS findings, most notably an ischemia extent>10% of the left ventricle (LV), hold prognostic significance and support maximization of anti-ischemic treatment. We aimed to assess sex-specific associations of MPS findings with cardiovascular (CV) events in a population at high risk of CCS. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, 1,229 consecutive patients (age 70 ± 9.5 years, 73.5% males) without known CCS were referred to stress-rest MPS. All patients were followed for a median of 4.6 years for CV events. RESULTS: Men and women had comparable risk profiles and incidence rates of CV events (6.6% vs. 4.6% respectively, P = 0.186). A summed stress score (SSS) > 7 was associated with the primary endpoint, including CV death and/or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-5.46; P = 0.001), all-cause mortality (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.31-6.93; P = 0.01), and incidence of late revascularization (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.22-2.78; P = 0.004) in men but not women. A summed difference score (SDS) > 6 was related to a higher rate of the primary endpoint only in men (adjusted HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.18-3.30; P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing a diagnostic workup for suspected CCS, stress perfusion and reversible ischemia abnormalities may independently predict worse survival and more CV events in men. However, the obtained results indicated the need for sex-specific cutoffs to refine risk stratification and assist in clinical decisions on anti-ischemic therapy beyond coronary artery anatomy.

Prognostic impact of patients' management based on anatomic/functional phenotype: a study in patients with chronic coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: In stable coronary artery disease (CAD), the prognostic interaction between clinical variables and treatment appropriateness based on anatomic/functional phenotype needs to be evaluated. METHODS: 1585 consecutive patients underwent myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and coronary angiography within 90 days. Obstructive CAD (> 70% stenosis) with downstream moderate-to-severe ischemia (> 10%) was considered significant. Coronary revascularization was considered appropriate if all hemodynamically significant lesions were revascularized, while medical therapy only was deemed appropriate in the absence of hemodynamically significant CAD. RESULTS: Obstructive CAD and moderate-to-severe ischemia were documented in 1184 (75%) and 466 (29%) patients, respectively. Over mean follow-up of 4.7 ± 2.5 years, the primary endpoint (cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction) occurred in 132 (8.2%) patients. Of patients with obstructive CAD, 797 (67%) were managed appropriately. Patients' management was inappropriate in 389 patients, because either non-hemodynamically significant lesions were revascularized (50%, including 2 patients with non-obstructive lesions being inappropriately revascularized) or ischemia-causing CAD was left untreated (50%). At multivariate analysis, an inappropriate management (P < .001) was correlated with the primary endpoint, together with previous myocardial infarction (P = .009), lower ejection fraction (P < .001) and higher glucose levels (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In stable CAD patients, management based on anatomic/functional phenotyping was correlated with a prognostic advantage at long-term follow-up. Correlation between treatment categories and patients' prognosis. A significantly higher event-rate was observed in patients where hemodynamically significant coronary lesions were left untreated-either because MT was not-adherently chosen or in the case of incomplete revascularization-than in those that were revascularized completely (17.6% vs 5.1%; P < .001). Conversely, the revascularization of non-hemodynamically significant CAD correlated with a higher event-rate than that of similar patients managed medically (13.8% vs 8.3%, P = .04). The event-rate of patients in whom coronary revascularization was performed in the presence of hemodynamically significant CAD ('appropriate revascularization') was similar to those with "No CAD/non-obstructive CAD" (5.1% vs 3.5%; P = NS).