Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKelly, Damian
dc.date.accessioned2016-08-18T10:24:29Z
dc.date.available2016-08-18T10:24:29Z
dc.date.issued2015-12
dc.identifier.citationJ Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Dec 22;66(24):2713-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.099.language
dc.identifier.urihttps://orda.derbyhospitals.nhs.uk/handle/123456789/133
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Complete revascularization may improve outcomes compared with an infarct-related artery (IRA)-only strategy in patients being treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) who have multivessel disease presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there is concern that non-IRA PCI may cause additional non-IRA myocardial infarction (MI). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether in-hospital complete revascularization was associated with increased total infarct size compared with an IRA-only strategy. METHODS: This multicenter prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint clinical trial evaluated STEMI patients with multivessel disease having PPCI within 12 h of symptom onset. Patients were randomized to either IRA-only PCI or complete in-hospital revascularization. Contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) was performed following PPCI (median day 3) and stress CMR at 9 months. The pre-specified primary endpoint was infarct size on pre-discharge CMR. The study had 80% power to detect a 4% difference in infarct size with 100 patients per group. RESULTS: Of the 296 patients in the main trial, 205 participated in the CMR substudy, and 203 patients (98 complete revascularization and 105 IRA-only) completed the pre-discharge CMR. The groups were well-matched. Total infarct size (median, interquartile range) was similar to IRA-only revascularization: 13.5% (6.2% to 21.9%) versus complete revascularization, 12.6% (7.2% to 22.6%) of left ventricular mass, p = 0.57 (95% confidence interval for difference in geometric means 0.82 to 1.41). The complete revascularization group had an increase in non-IRA MI on the pre-discharge CMR (22 of 98 vs. 11 of 105, p = 0.02). There was no difference in total infarct size or ischemic burden between treatment groups at follow-up CMR. CONCLUSIONS: Multivessel PCI in the setting of STEMI leads to a small increase in CMR-detected non-IRA MI, but total infarct size was not significantly different from an IRA-only revascularization strategy. (Complete Versus Lesion-Only Primary PCI Pilot Study [CvLPRIT]; ISRCTN70913605).language
dc.language.isoenlanguage
dc.subjectCardiovascular Magnetic Resonancelanguage
dc.subjectMultivessel Diseaselanguage
dc.subjectPrimary Percutaneous Coronary Interventionlanguage
dc.subjectComplete Revascularisationlanguage
dc.titleComplete Versus Lesion-Only Primary PCI: The Randomized Cardiovascular MR CvLPRIT Substudy.language
dc.typeArticlelanguage


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record