ABSTRACT
Background: Data regarding management of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery in-stent restenosis (LM-ISR) are scarce. Objectives: This study investigated the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of unprotected LM-ISR. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent PCI or CABG for unprotected LM-ISR were enrolled. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stroke. Results: A total of 305 patients were enrolled, of which 203(66.6%) underwent PCI and 102(33.4%) underwent CABG. At 30-day follow-up, a lower risk of cardiac death was observed in the PCI group, compared with the CABG-treated group (2.1% vs. 7.1%, HR 3.48, 95%CI 1.01-11.8, p = 0.04). At a median of 3.5 years [interquartile range (IQR) 1.3-5.5] follow-up, MACCE occurred in 27.7% vs. 29.6% (HR 0.82, 95%CI 0.52-1.32, p = 0.43) in PCI- and CABG-treated patients, respectively. There were no significant differences between PCI and CABG in cardiac death (9.9% vs. 18.4%; HR 1.56, 95%CI 0.81-3.00, p = 0.18), MI (7.9% vs. 5.1%, HR 0.44, 95%CI 0.15-1.27, p = 0.13), or stroke (2.1% vs. 4.1%, HR 1.79, 95%CI 0.45-7.16, p = 0.41). TVR was more frequently needed in the PCI group (15.2% vs. 6.1%, HR 0.35, 95%CI 0.15-0.85, p = 0.02). Conclusions: This analysis of patients with LM-ISR revealed a lower incidence of cardiac death in PCI compared with CABG in short-term follow-up. During the long-term follow-up, no differences in MACCE were observed, but patients treated with CABG less often required TVR. Visual overview: A visual overview is available for this article. Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04968977.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: The aim of the study was to compare in-hospital and long-term prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and de novo vs. pre-existing atrial fibrillation (AF). Atrial fibrillation increases the risk of serious adverse events including death in patients with ACS. However, it is unclear whether de novo and pre-existing AF portend a different risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed the incidence, clinical characteristics, and in-hospital and long-term outcomes in patients with AF and ACS based on combined data from Polish Registry of Acute Coronary Syndrome (PL-ACS) (n = 581â843) and SILICARD (n = 852â063) databases. Atrial fibrillation at admission was diagnosed in of 6.16% patients [de novo: 1129 (2.46%); pre-existing: 1691 (3.7%)]. Groups were compared (N = 1023 vs. 1023) after matching for relevant clinical factors. De novo and pre-existing AF differed in in-hospital diuretic (52% vs. 58%; P = 0.008) and aldosterone inhibitor (27.5% vs. 32.5%; P = 0.02) use, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow before percutaneous coronary intervention (P = 0.016), and diuretic (52.1% vs. 58%; P = 0.008) and oral anticoagulant (27.5% vs. 32.5%; P = 0.018) use at discharge. In-hospital mortality in the de novo AF group was significantly higher (13.1% vs. 8.31%; P = 0.0005). Post-discharge 12-month survival was similar between groups (14.5% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.63). Long-term re-hospitalization due to heart failure (22.7% vs. 17.2%; P < 0.005) and medical contact due to AF (48.4% vs. 26.1%, P < 0.0001) rates were higher in the group with pre-existing AF, without the difference of stroke or myocardial infarction occurrence. CONCLUSION: De novo AF accounts for 40% of all AF cases in ACS patients and is an unfavourable in-hospital prognostic factor. The occurrence of de novo AF during ACS should require special attention and caution in the treatment of these patients.
