TY - JOUR
T1 - Residual ischemia after revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease
T2 - Insights from measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow using magnetic resonance imaging compared with angiographic assessment
AU - Arnold, Jayanth R.
AU - Karamitsos, Theodoros D.
AU - Van Gaal, William J.
AU - Testa, Luca
AU - Francis, Jane M.
AU - Bhamra-Ariza, Paul
AU - Ali, Ali
AU - Selvanayagam, Joseph B.
AU - Westaby, Steve
AU - Sayeed, Rana
AU - Jerosch-Herold, Michael
AU - Neubauer, Stefan
AU - Banning, Adrian P.
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2014 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2013/6
Y1 - 2013/6
N2 - Background-Revascularization strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease include percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. In this study, we compared the completeness of revascularization as assessed by coronary angiography and by quantitative serial perfusion imaging using cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Methods and Results-Patients with multivessel coronary disease were recruited into a randomized trial of treatment with either coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention. Angiographic disease burden was determined by the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) myocardial jeopardy index. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance first-pass perfusion imaging was performed before and 5 to 6 months after revascularization. Using modelindependent deconvolution, hyperemic myocardial blood flow was evaluated, and ischemic burden was quantified. Sixtyseven patients completed follow-up (33 coronary artery bypass grafting and 34 percutaneous coronary intervention). The myocardial jeopardy index was 80.7±15.2% at baseline and 6.9±11.3% after revascularization (P<0.0001), with revascularization deemed complete in 62.7% of patients. Relative to cardiovascular magnetic resonance, angiographic assessment overestimated disease burden at baseline (80.7±15.2% versus 49.9±29.2% [P<0.0001]), but underestimated it postprocedure (6.9±11.3% versus 28.1±33.4% [P<0.0001]). Fewer patients achieved complete revascularization based on functional criteria than on angiographic assessment (38.8% versus 62.7%; P=0.015). After revascularization, hyperemic myocardial blood flow was significantly higher in segments supplied by arterial bypass grafts than those supplied by venous grafts (2.04±0.82 mL/min per gram versus 1.89±0.81 mL/min per gram, respectively; P=0.04). Conclusions-Angiographic assessment may overestimate disease burden before revascularization, and underestimate residual ischemia after revascularization. Functional data demonstrate that a significant burden of ischemia remains even after angiographically defined successful revascularization.
AB - Background-Revascularization strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease include percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. In this study, we compared the completeness of revascularization as assessed by coronary angiography and by quantitative serial perfusion imaging using cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Methods and Results-Patients with multivessel coronary disease were recruited into a randomized trial of treatment with either coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention. Angiographic disease burden was determined by the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) myocardial jeopardy index. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance first-pass perfusion imaging was performed before and 5 to 6 months after revascularization. Using modelindependent deconvolution, hyperemic myocardial blood flow was evaluated, and ischemic burden was quantified. Sixtyseven patients completed follow-up (33 coronary artery bypass grafting and 34 percutaneous coronary intervention). The myocardial jeopardy index was 80.7±15.2% at baseline and 6.9±11.3% after revascularization (P<0.0001), with revascularization deemed complete in 62.7% of patients. Relative to cardiovascular magnetic resonance, angiographic assessment overestimated disease burden at baseline (80.7±15.2% versus 49.9±29.2% [P<0.0001]), but underestimated it postprocedure (6.9±11.3% versus 28.1±33.4% [P<0.0001]). Fewer patients achieved complete revascularization based on functional criteria than on angiographic assessment (38.8% versus 62.7%; P=0.015). After revascularization, hyperemic myocardial blood flow was significantly higher in segments supplied by arterial bypass grafts than those supplied by venous grafts (2.04±0.82 mL/min per gram versus 1.89±0.81 mL/min per gram, respectively; P=0.04). Conclusions-Angiographic assessment may overestimate disease burden before revascularization, and underestimate residual ischemia after revascularization. Functional data demonstrate that a significant burden of ischemia remains even after angiographically defined successful revascularization.
KW - Bypass surgery
KW - Revascularization
KW - Stent
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84884486170&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.112.000064
DO - 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.112.000064
M3 - Article
C2 - 23696598
AN - SCOPUS:84884486170
SN - 1941-7640
VL - 6
SP - 237
EP - 245
JO - Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
JF - Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
IS - 3
ER -