Impact of stress testing before percutaneous coronary intervention or medical management on outcomes of patients with persistent total occlusion after myocardial infarction: analysis from the occluded artery trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Occluded Artery Trial (OAT), 2,201 stable patients with an occluded infarct-related artery (IRA) were randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or optimal medical treatment alone (MED). There was no difference in the primary end point of death, reinfarction, or congestive heart failure (CHF). We examined the prognostic impact of prerandomization stress testing. METHODS: Stress testing was required by protocol except for patients with single-vessel disease and akinesis/dyskinesis of the infarct zone. The presence of severe inducible ischemia was an exclusion criterion for OAT. We compared outcomes based on performance and results of stress testing. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-eight (27%) patients (297 PCI, 301 MED) underwent stress testing. Radionuclide imaging or stress echocardiography was performed in 40%. Patients who had stress testing were younger (57 vs 59 years); had higher ejection fractions (49% vs 47%); and had lower rates of death (7.8% vs 13.2%), class IV CHF (2.4% vs 5.5%), and the primary end point (13.9% vs 18.9%) than patients without stress testing (all P < .01). Mild-moderate ischemia was observed in 40% of patients with stress testing and was not related to outcomes. Among patients with inducible ischemia, outcomes were similar for PCI and MED (all P > .10). CONCLUSIONS: In OAT, patients who underwent stress testing had better outcomes than patients who did not, likely related to differences in baseline characteristics. In patients managed with optimal medical therapy or PCI, mild-moderate inducible ischemia was not related to outcomes. The lack of benefit for PCI compared to MED alone was consistent regardless of whether stress testing was performed or inducible ischemia was present.

Randomized trial of percutaneous coronary intervention for subacute infarct-related coronary artery occlusion to achieve long-term patency and improve ventricular function: the Total Occlusion Study of Canada (TOSCA)-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the present study, we sought to determine whether opening a persistently occluded infarct-related artery (IRA) by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients beyond the acute phase of myocardial infarction (MI) improves patency and indices of left ventricular (LV) size and function. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between May 2000 and July 2005, 381 patients with an occluded native IRA 3 to 28 days after MI (median 10 days) were randomized to PCI with stenting (PCI) or optimal medical therapy alone. Repeat coronary and LV angiography was performed 1 year after randomization (n=332, 87%). Coprimary end points were IRA patency and change in LV ejection fraction. Secondary end points included change in LV end-systolic and end-diastolic volume indices and wall motion. PCI was successful in 92%. At 1 year, 83% of PCI versus 25% of medical therapy-only patients had a patent IRA (P<0.001). LV ejection fraction increased significantly (P<0.001) in both groups, with no between-group difference: PCI 4.2+/-8.9 (n=150) versus medical therapy 3.5+/-8.2 (n=136; P=0.47). Median change (interquartile range) in LV end-systolic volume index was -0.5 (-9.3 to 5.0) versus 1.0 (-5.7 to 7.3) mL/m2 (P=0.10), whereas median change (interquartile range) in LV end-diastolic volume index was 3.2 (-8.2 to 13.3) versus 5.3 (-4.6 to 23.2) mL/m2 (P=0.07) in the PCI (n=86) and medical therapy-only (n=76) groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PCI with stenting of a persistently occluded IRA in the subacute phase after MI effectively maintains long-term patency but has no effect on LV ejection fraction. On the basis of these findings and the lack of clinical benefit in the main Occluded Artery Trial, routine PCI is not recommended for stable patients with a persistently occluded IRA after MI.