7 research outputs found

    Exercise stress testing before and after successful multivessel percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

    No full text
    Controversy exists regarding the diagnostic accuracy, optimal technique, and timing of exercise testing after percutaneous coronary intervention. The objectives of the present study were to analyze variables and the power of exercise testing to predict restenosis or a new lesion, 6 months after the procedure. Eight-four coronary multi-artery diseased patients with preserved ventricular function were studied (66 males, mean age of all patients: 59 ± 10 years). All underwent coronary angiography and exercise testing with the Bruce protocol, before and 6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention. The following parameters were measured: heart rate, blood pressure, rate-pressure product (heart rate x systolic blood pressure), presence of angina, maximal ST-segment depression, and exercise duration. On average, 2.33 lesions/patient were treated and restenosis or progression of disease occurred in 46 (55%) patients. Significant increases in systolic blood pressure (P = 0.022), rate-pressure product (P = 0.045) and exercise duration (P = 0.003) were detected after the procedure. Twenty-seven (32%) patients presented angina during the exercise test before the procedure and 16 (19%) after the procedure. The exercise test for the detection of restenosis or new lesion presented 61% sensitivity, 63% specificity, 62% accuracy, and 67 and 57% positive and negative predictive values, respectively. In patients without restenosis, the exercise duration after percutaneous coronary intervention was significantly longer (460 ± 154 vs 381 ± 145 s, P = 0.008). Only the exercise duration permitted us to identify patients with and without restenosis or a new lesion

    Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

    No full text
    BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used
    corecore