4.2 Article

Impact of coronary revascularization vs medical therapy on ischemia among stable patients with or suspected coronary artery disease undergoing serial myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 1690-1698

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12350-016-0504-5

关键词

Cardiovascular disease; coronary artery bypass grafting; coronary artery disease; myocardial ischemia; maximal ischemia score; myocardial perfusion imaging; myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

资金

  1. Etisan, Rome, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Randomized trials have challenged the role of revascularization in stable coronary artery disease. We aimed to appraise the impact of revascularization on ischemia in patients undergoing serial myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS). Methods. We queried our institutional database for stable subjects undergoing serial MPS and appraised the impact of revascularization on changes in ischemia. Results. A total of 3631 patients were included: 967 (27%) undergoing revascularization and 2664 (73%) receiving medical therapy only. Patients treated with revascularization had a significantly lower burden of myocardial ischemia at follow-up (odds ratio = 0.577 [95% confidence interval 0.483-0.689] vs medical therapy, P < .001). Among all those having moderate or severe ischemia at baseline, revascularization was associated with a follow-up prevalence of 80% for no, minimal, or mild ischemia and 20% for moderate or severe ischemia, vs 43% and 57% for medical therapy (P < .001). Even at multivariable analysis and propensity-adjusted, and propensity-matched analyses, revascularization was associated with a significantly lower prevalence of moderate or severe ischemia at follow-up (respectively P < .001, P = .001, and P = .042). Conclusions. Revascularization appears superior to medical therapy in reducing ischemic burden and normalizing myocardial perfusion among subjects with moderate or severe ischemia at baseline.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据