A propensity matched comparison of return to work and quality of life after stenting or coronary artery bypass surgery

Objectives: We sought to determine (1) return to work (RTW) rates, (2) long-term employment (>12 months postprocedure), (3) time taken to RTW, and (4) quality of life (QoL), in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: Questionnaires regarding RTW were sent to 689 PCI and 169 CABG patients who underwent PCI or CABG at University Hospitals of Leicester Trust, UK, from May 2012 to May 2013. QoL was also measured using the European QoL 5-dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D). Responses from patients employed preprocedure were analysed using multivariate logistic regression. Propensity score-matching was further used to compare similar patient populations receiving PCI or CABG. Results: The response rate was 38% (235 PCI and 88 CABG patients). 241 respondents (75%) were employed preprocedure. Of these 162 (93%) PCI and 51 (77%) CABG patients returned to work, whereas 147 (85%) PCI and 41 (62%) CABG patients were still employed at >12 months postprocedure. After propensity analysis, there was no significant difference between PCI and CABG patients in RTW, long-term employment, nor QoL. The median time taken to RTW was 6 weeks after PCI and 13 weeks after CABG (p=0.001). The effect remained significant after multivariate analysis (p=0.001) and propensity analysis (p=0.001). Conclusions: In this first propensity score-matched study comparing RTW and QoL after PCI or CABG strict propensity matching indicates that RTW or QoL, is similar for PCI or CABG, albeit the number of matched pairs was small. There are differences, however, in delay in RTW

Ischemia and Infarction in STEMI Patients With Multivessel Disease : Insights From the CvLPRIT Nuclear Substudy

The CvLPRIT (Complete versus Lesion-only PRimary PCI Trial) trial was undertaken in 7 UK centers (1,2). Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary stenoses were randomized to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) to the infarct-related artery (IRA) only, or complete revascularization. At 12-month follow-up, the rate of the combined primary endpoint (all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, heart failure, ischemia-driven revascularization) was lower after complete revascularization. All surviving patients were asked to undergo myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) 6 to 8 weeks post-admission. It was expected that this a priori nuclear substudy would provide mechanistic insights into the outcome of the main trial, and help to define the clinical role of MPS in the PPCI era

Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and Multivessel Disease

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of patients found to have multivessel disease while undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is uncertain.   OBJECTIVES: CvLPRIT (Complete versus Lesion-only Primary PCI trial) is a U.K. open-label randomized study comparing complete revascularization at index admission with treatment of the infarct-related artery (IRA) only.   METHODS: After they provided verbal assent and underwent coronary angiography, 296 patients in 7 U.K. centers were randomized through an interactive voice-response program to either in-hospital complete revascularization (n = 150) or IRA-only revascularization (n = 146). Complete revascularization was performed either at the time of P-PCI or before hospital discharge. Randomization was stratified by infarct location (anterior/nonanterior) and symptom onset (≤3 h or >3 h). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, and ischemia-driven revascularization within 12 months.   RESULTS: Patient groups were well matched for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.0% of the complete revascularization group versus 21.2% in the IRA-only revascularization group (hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.24 to 0.84; p = 0.009). A trend toward benefit was seen early after complete revascularization (p = 0.055 at 30 days). Although there was no significant reduction in death or MI, a nonsignificant reduction in all primary endpoint components was seen. There was no reduction in ischemic burden on myocardial perfusion scintigraphy or in the safety endpoints of major bleeding, contrast-induced nephropathy, or stroke between the groups.   CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting for P-PCI with multivessel disease, index admission complete revascularization significantly lowered the rate of the composite primary endpoint at 12 months compared with treating only the IRA. In such patients, inpatient total revascularization may be considered, but larger clinical trials are required to confirm this result and specifically address whether this strategy is associated with improved survival. (Complete Versus Lesion-only Primary PCI Pilot Study [CvLPRIT]; ISRCTN70913605)

Economic evaluation of complete revascularization for patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of complete revascularisation at index admission compared to infarct-related artery (IRA) treatment only, in patients with multi-vessel disease undergoing Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) for ST-segment elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI). Methods: Economic evaluation of a multi-centre randomised trial comparing complete revascularisation at index admission to IRA-only P-PCI in patients with multi-vessel disease (12 month follow-up). Overall hospital costs (costs for P-PCI procedure(s), hospital stay and any subsequent readmissions) were estimated. Outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, heart failure, and ischemia-driven revascularisation) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the EQ-5D-3L. Multiple imputation was undertaken. The mean incremental cost and effects, with associated 95% confidence intervals (95%CI), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) were estimated. Results: Based on 296 patients, the mean incremental overall hospital cost for complete revascularisation was estimated to be –£215.96 (–£1,390.20 to £958.29), compared to IRA-only, with a per-patient mean reduction in MACE events of 0.170 (0.044 to 0.296) and a QALY gain of 0.011 (-0.019 to 0.041). According to the CEAC, the probability of complete revascularisation being cost-effective was estimated to be 72.0% at willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY. Conclusions: Complete revascularisation at index admission was estimated to be more effective (in terms of MACE and QALYs) and cost-effective (overall costs were estimated to be lower and complete revascularisation thereby dominated IRA-only). There was, however, some uncertainty associated with this decision

Angiographic and clinical outcome of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty: A collaborative, individual patient data meta-analysis of six registry-based studies

The characteristics and outcome of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) are still poorly known