Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Clinical outcomes in myocardial infarction and multivessel disease after a cardiac rehabilitation programme: Partial versus complete revascularization

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Mori Junco, Ricardo
Gonzalez-Gallarza, Regina Dalmau
Conde, Almudena Castro
Fernandez, Oscar González
Ortega, Carlos Álvarez
Bermejo, Zorba Blázquez
Furuya-Kanamori, Luis
Gomez, Raúl Moreno
de Sa Arreses, Esteban López

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Elsevier Masson

Abstract

Background Current guideline recommendations encourage culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. However, recent studies have shown a better clinical outcome in patients who receive multivessel PCI. Aim To measure and compare clinical outcomes between partial revascularization (PR) versus complete revascularization (CR) in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who underwent a cardiac rehabilitation programme. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 282 patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who received PR or CR and were subsequently enrolled in a cardiac rehabilitation programme between July 2006 and November 2013 at La Paz University Hospital. The incidences of cardiovascular events, new PCI, hospital admissions for cardiovascular reasons and mortality were compared between the PR and CR groups. Results Overall, 143 patients received PR and 139 received CR. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups, except for mean age (59.3 vs. 56.7 years; P = 0.02), diabetes mellitus prevalence (34.3% vs. 20.1%; P = 0.01) and number of arteries with stenosis (2.6 vs. 2.3; P = 0.001). During the mean follow-up of 48.0 ± 25.9 months, a cardiovascular event occurred in 23 (16.1%) PR patients and 20 (14.4%) CR patients, with no statistically significant differences in the early (hazard ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.19–1.89) or late (hazard ratio: 1.40, 95% confidence interval: 0.62–3.14) follow-up periods. Cox regression, adjusted for age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus and number of affected coronary vessels, showed no difference in new cardiovascular event risk. Conclusions There were no statistical differences in clinical outcomes between PR and CR among patients who received cardiac rehabilitation

Description

Keywords

Citation

Source

Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

License Rights

Restricted until

2099-12-31
abcd