Recovery of myocardial perfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention of chronic total occlusions is comparable to hemodynamically significant non-occlusive lesions.
Aged
Chronic Disease
Coronary Angiography
Coronary Occlusion
/ diagnostic imaging
Coronary Vessels
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial
Hemodynamics
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Myocardial Perfusion Imaging
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
/ adverse effects
Positron-Emission Tomography
Predictive Value of Tests
Prospective Studies
Recovery of Function
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
atherosclerosis
coronary artery disease
positron emission tomography
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 05 2019
01 05 2019
Historique:
received:
04
05
2018
revised:
19
09
2018
accepted:
08
10
2018
pubmed:
16
11
2018
medline:
9
6
2020
entrez:
16
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The benefits of chronic coronary total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are being questioned. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of CTO PCI on absolute myocardial perfusion, as compared with PCI of hemodynamically significant non-CTO lesions. Consecutive patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥50%) and a CTO or non-CTO lesion, in whom [ In total 92 patients with a CTO and 31 patients with a non-CTO lesion were included. CTOs induced larger perfusion defect sizes (4.51 ± 1.69 vs. 3.23 ± 2.38 segments, P < 0.01) with lower hyperemic MBF (1.30 ± 0.37 vs. 1.58 ± 0.62 mL·min Myocardial perfusion findings are slightly more hampered in patients with a CTO before and after PCI. Percutaneous revascularization of CTOs, however, improves absolute myocardial perfusion similarly to PCI of hemodynamically significant non-CTO lesions, leading to satisfying results.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The benefits of chronic coronary total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are being questioned. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of CTO PCI on absolute myocardial perfusion, as compared with PCI of hemodynamically significant non-CTO lesions.
METHODS
Consecutive patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥50%) and a CTO or non-CTO lesion, in whom [
RESULTS
In total 92 patients with a CTO and 31 patients with a non-CTO lesion were included. CTOs induced larger perfusion defect sizes (4.51 ± 1.69 vs. 3.23 ± 2.38 segments, P < 0.01) with lower hyperemic MBF (1.30 ± 0.37 vs. 1.58 ± 0.62 mL·min
CONCLUSIONS
Myocardial perfusion findings are slightly more hampered in patients with a CTO before and after PCI. Percutaneous revascularization of CTOs, however, improves absolute myocardial perfusion similarly to PCI of hemodynamically significant non-CTO lesions, leading to satisfying results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30430715
doi: 10.1002/ccd.27945
pmc: PMC6588018
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1059-1066Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2018 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Jul 28;66(4):403-69
pubmed: 25553722
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Mar 13;59(11):991-7
pubmed: 22402070
Circulation. 2003 Jun 17;107(23):2900-7
pubmed: 12771008
J Interv Cardiol. 2010 Apr;23(2):139-48
pubmed: 20236211
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Nov 1;68(18):1958-1970
pubmed: 27788851
Lancet. 2018 Jan 6;391(10115):31-40
pubmed: 29103656
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Mar 15;231:78-83
pubmed: 27887799
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Sep 1;18(9):1025-1033
pubmed: 27585716
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Oct 1;2(10):1100-1107
pubmed: 28813561
J Nucl Med. 2004 Jun;45(6):950-5
pubmed: 15181129
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Sep 1;78(3):337-43
pubmed: 21413136
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Jul 9;11(13):1309-1311
pubmed: 29976368
Circulation. 2013 Feb 12;127(6):703-9
pubmed: 23277308
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Feb 5;61(5):545-50
pubmed: 23273395
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 May 1;93(6):1059-1066
pubmed: 30430715
Eur Heart J. 2014 Oct 1;35(37):2541-619
pubmed: 25173339
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Feb 15;253:29-34
pubmed: 29306468
Am Heart J. 2010 Jul;160(1):179-87
pubmed: 20598990
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015 Jan;12(1):48-62
pubmed: 25311229
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Oct 7;64(14):1464-75
pubmed: 25277618
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Apr;5(4):367-79
pubmed: 22516392
Circulation. 2001 Sep 4;104(10):1129-34
pubmed: 11535568
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Feb;8(2):245-253
pubmed: 25700746
Circulation. 2008 Mar 11;117(10):1283-91
pubmed: 18268144
Eur Heart J. 2016 Sep 14;37(35):2692-700
pubmed: 26254179
Circulation. 2002 Jan 29;105(4):539-42
pubmed: 11815441
EuroIntervention. 2017 Jun 20;13(3):345-354
pubmed: 28242588
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Jan 1;83(1):9-16
pubmed: 23703867
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Feb;4(2):213-21
pubmed: 21349461
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Sep 23;64(12):1281-9
pubmed: 25236522
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Nov 1;92(5):E308-E316
pubmed: 29481724
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 Mar 1;21(3):612-21
pubmed: 8436742
Circulation. 2005 Oct 11;112(15):2364-72
pubmed: 16216980