Myocardial revascularization failure among patients requiring cardiac catheterization and secondary revascularization in contemporary clinical practice: Results of the REVASEC multicenter registry
- PMID: 37582340
- DOI: 10.1002/ccd.30804
Myocardial revascularization failure among patients requiring cardiac catheterization and secondary revascularization in contemporary clinical practice: Results of the REVASEC multicenter registry
Abstract
Background: Myocardial revascularization failure (MRF) and Secondary revascularization (SR) are contemporary interventional cardiology challenges.
Aim: To investigate the characteristics, management, and prognosis of patients with myocardial revascularization failure (MRF) and need for secondary revascularization (SR) in contemporary practice.
Methods: The REVASEC study is a prospective registry (NCT03349385), which recruited patients with prior revascularization referred for coronary angiography at 19 centers. The primary endpoint is a patient-oriented composite (POCE) at 1 year, including death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization.
Results: A total of 869 patients previously revascularized by percutaneous intervention (83%) or surgery (17%) were recruited. MRF was found in 83.7% (41.1% stent/graft failure, 32.1% progression of coronary disease, and 10.5% residual disease). SR was performed in 70.1%, preferably by percutaneous intervention (95%). The POCE rate at 1 year was 14% in the overall cohort, with 6.4% all-cause death. In the multivariate analysis, lower POCE rates were found in the groups without MRF (9.4%) and with disease progression (11%) compared with graft/stent failure (17%) and residual disease (18%), hazard ratio 0.67 (95% confidence interval: 0.45-0.99), p = 0.043. At 1 year, the SR group had less chronic persistent angina (19% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), but a higher rate of repeat revascularization (9% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001).
Conclusion: MRF was found in 84% of patients with prior revascularization referred for coronary angiography. Stent/graft failure and residual coronary disease were associated with a worse prognosis. SR provided better symptom control at the expense of a higher rate of new revascularization.
Keywords: graft failure; myocardial revascularization failure; recurrent angina; repeat revascularization; secondary revascularization; stent failure.
© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Neumann F-J, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. EuroIntervention. 2019;14(14):1435-1534.
-
- Escaned J. Secondary revascularization after CABG surgery. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2012;9:540-549.
-
- Stefanini GG, Alfonso F, Barbato E, et al. Management of myocardial revascularization failure: an expert consensus document of the EAPCI. EuroIntervention. 2020;16(11):e875-e890. doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00487
-
- Cassese S, Byrne RA, Tada T, et al. Incidence and predictors of restenosis after coronary stenting in 10 004 patients with surveillance angiography. Heart. 2014;100:153-159.
-
- Alfonso F, Byrne RA, Rivero F, Kastrati A. Current treatment of in-stent restenosis. JACC. 2014;63:2659-2673.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
