https://doi.org/10.55788/f3ff3e03
The previously published COMPLETE trial showed that complete revascularisation (n=2,016) was superior to culprit-only revascularisation (n=2,025) at reducing death or myocardial infarction over 3 years of follow-up [1]. Prof. Shamir Mehta (McMaster University, Canada) presented a prespecified analysis that focused on health-related QoL outcomes measured with the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at baseline, 6 months, and 3 years [2].
The primary outcome results of SAQ-reported angina frequency showed that from baseline to 3 years, QoL was higher in the complete revascularisation group with 9.8 compared with 9.6 in the culprit-only group (P=0.003). Other subscale measures of the SAQ, including treatment satisfaction, QoL score, and summary score, also favoured complete revascularisation. By 3 years of follow-up, all subscale measures of the SAQ, including physical limitation, favoured complete versus culprit revascularisation. With regard to the presence of residual angina at 3 years, 12.5% in the complete revascularisation group reported it compared with 15.7% in the culprit-only group (P=0.013), with a number-needed-to-treat (NNT) measure of 31 to prevent 1 patient from experiencing angina.
Prof. Mehta noted that the main COMPLETE trial was designed to show a reduction in major cardiovascular events, and most of the benefit of complete revascularisation on cardiovascular death was in those with tighter non-culprit lesion stenosis ≥80%. “Here, for the patient-reported angina analysis, it appears that the benefit on angina specifically is really in the patients with more severe non-culprit lesions,” he added.
- Mehta SR, et al. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1411–1421.
- Mehta SR, et al. Effects Of Complete Revascularization On Angina-related Quality Of Life In Patients With St-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Abstract 403–12, ACC 2022, 2–4 April, Washington DC, USA.
Copyright ©2022 Medicom Medical Publishers
Posted on
Previous Article
« Plot twist for negative FAME 3 results: early QoL benefits of PCI Next Article
Symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: long-term mavacamten control »
« Plot twist for negative FAME 3 results: early QoL benefits of PCI Next Article
Symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: long-term mavacamten control »
Table of Contents: ACC 2022
Featured articles
Alirocumab significantly reduces high-risk coronary plaques
Highlighted Original Research
POISE-3: Tranexamic acid for non-cardiac surgery
Treating chronic mild hypertension during pregnancy leads to better outcomes
New VOYAGER PAD data: Should patients with both PAD and CKD get rivaroxaban?
Alirocumab significantly reduces high-risk coronary plaques
Aggressive warming during non-cardiac surgery does not improve outcomes
Heart Failure and Cardiomyopathy
DIAMOND trial: Patiromer lowers risk of severe hyperkalaemia
Replacing septal reduction therapy with mavacamten for HCM
Omecamtiv mecarbil does not impact exercise capacity of patients with HFrEF
Symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: long-term mavacamten control
Interventional and Structural Cardiology
COMPLETE revascularisation improves angina-related QoL
Plot twist for negative FAME 3 results: early QoL benefits of PCI
1-year CLASP TR results support tricuspid regurgitation repair
Head-to-head: post-TAVR edoxaban not better than DAPT
Chocolate Touch vs Lutonix catheters
No FLAVOUR difference between FFR and IVUS for PCI guidance
Myocardial Infarction
Low-resource countries benefit from global STEMI initiative
Sodium thiosulfate ineffective at cardiac protection
ICM-guided management did not improve MACE after MI
Prevention
PACIFIC-AF: Low bleeding rates for asundexian in atrial fibrillation
RCT-IVVE trial: Do HF patients benefit from annual flu shots?
TRANSLATE-TIMI 70: Primary endpoint met but safety concerns for vupanorsen
Lipoprotein(a) slashed by 98% in APOLLO trial
Dietary intervention from your supermarket
Related Articles
June 15, 2022
ICM-guided management did not improve MACE after MI
June 15, 2022
Chocolate Touch vs Lutonix catheters
© 2024 Medicom Medical Publishers. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy
HEAD OFFICE
Laarderhoogtweg 25
1101 EB Amsterdam
The Netherlands
T: +31 85 4012 560
E: publishers@medicom-publishers.com