ABSTRACT
Although recent studies showed the prognostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) parameters especially microvascular obstruction (MO) after reperfused ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), a study assessing their prognostic significance for long-term follow-up is missing so far. The objective of this study was to determine the prognostic impact of MO on long-term prognosis after reperfused first STEMI in a setting allocating CMR-assessed parameters to hard clinical events only. In 249 patients, CMR was performed after reperfused STEMI, and hereby, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), infarct size (IS), and the amount of MO were quantified. Follow-up (median 6.0 years) was obtained regarding occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). MACE occurred more often in patients showing presence of MO (MO vs no MO: n = 61 [54%] vs n = 12 [9%], p <0.0001). By multivariate analysis, the extent of MO remained the strongest predictor (p <0.001) for occurrence of MACE and provided incremental prognostic value over clinical variables and LVEF (p = 0.028, c-index increase from 0.723 to 0.817). In conclusion, CMR-assessed MO proves predictive for assessment of 6-year prognosis in patients after reperfused first STEMI and provides incremental prognostic information over clinical variables and LVEF in a setting based on hard end points.
Subject(s)
Coronary Circulation/physiology , Coronary Occlusion/diagnosis , Gadolinium DTPA , Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine/methods , Microcirculation , Myocardial Infarction/complications , Myocardial Reperfusion/methods , Contrast Media , Coronary Occlusion/epidemiology , Coronary Occlusion/etiology , Electrocardiography , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis , Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/methods , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment/methods , Time FactorsABSTRACT
AIMS: The transradial (TR) approach has potentially lower complication rates than transfemoral (TF) approach coronary angiography. However, it may be technically more challenging, especially in elderly patients with alterations in vascular anatomy. We thus determined success rates, procedural data, and complication rates of TR angiography in comparison to the TF approach in elderly patients in a randomized, prospective trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four hundred consecutive patients >or=75 years with known or suspected coronary artery disease were included in the study. After exclusion of 93 patients with contraindications to the radial approach, 152 patients were randomized to the TR and 155 to TF coronary angiography and intervention. In 13 patients randomized to TR, cross-over to TF was necessary (9%). Total examination time was significantly longer for the TR approach (18.1 vs. 15.0 min, P = 0.009), but no difference was found for fluoroscopy time, number of catheters used, or amount of contrast agent. The rate of major complications (bleeding requiring surgery or transfusion, stroke) was 0% for TR and 3.2% for TF approach (P < 0.001). Minor complications occurred in 1.3% versus 5.8% of patients (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In elderly patients, TR coronary angiography and intervention has a high technical success rate and lower complication rates than the TF approach.
