EVALUATING PCI EFFICACY IN MULTI-VESSEL CAD: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY

Main Article Content

Dr. Khair Ul Bashar
Dr. Aisha Hussain
Dr. Shahbaz Ali Shaikh
Dr. Muhammad Ismail
Dr. Mishal
Dr. Muhammad Hashim Kalwar
Dr Muhammad Kamran Khan

Keywords

Coronary artery disease, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Multi-vessel CAD, Quality of life, Angina, Rehospitalization, Adverse events

Abstract

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Multi-vessel CAD presents a significant clinical challenge, often necessitating comprehensive revascularization strategies. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) has emerged as a vital treatment modality, offering a less invasive alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for restoring coronary blood flow and alleviating symptoms.

Objective: This prospective study aims to evaluate the efficacy of PCI in patients with multi-vessel CAD, focusing on improvements in quality of life and reduction in angina episodes. Secondary objectives include assessing rehospitalization rates and the incidence of adverse events within six months post-PCI.


Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD) from January 2020 to December 2022. The study included 303 participants diagnosed with multi-vessel CAD, aged 40-89 years, who underwent PCI. Primary outcomes measured were quality of life and angina episodes, assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) pre- and Post-PCI. Secondary outcomes included rehospitalization rates and adverse events. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 26.0, with paired t-tests employed to compare pre- and Post-PCI outcomes. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.


Results: The baseline characteristics of the study population showed a mean age of 65.4 years, with a majority being male (63.4%). Post-PCI, there was a significant improvement in the quality of life score, with a mean increase of 15.3 points and a median improvement of 16.0. Additionally, the mean number of angina episodes decreased from 5.2 pre-PCI to 1.4 post-PCI. Figure 1 illustrates the significant improvement in quality of life scores post-PCI, depicting a noticeable upward trend across the cohort.

Rehospitalization within the first six months Post-PCI was observed in 8.6% of participants. Minor complications occurred in 4.3% of patients, while major complications were noted in 1.3%.


Conclusion: The study demonstrates that PCI significantly improves the quality of life and reduces angina episodes in patients with multi-vessel CAD. These findings support the integration of PCI into treatment protocols for this patient population, offering substantial clinical benefits. Further research is warranted to explore long-term outcomes and refine patient selection criteria to optimize treatment strategies.
Abstract 228 | pdf Downloads 74

References

1. Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2016 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2016;133(4). doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000350.
2. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87-165. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394.
3. Stone GW, Kandzari DE, Mehran R, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main and/or three-vessel coronary artery disease: the EXCEL trial. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(23):2223-2235. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1610227.
4. Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with three-vessel disease: final five-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(40):2821-2830. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu213.
5. Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal coronary stents: a mixed-treatment comparison analysis of 117 762 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials. Circulation. 2012;125(23):2873-2891. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.097014.
6. Park SJ, Kim YH, Park DW, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(18):1718-1727. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1100452.
7. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(15):1503-1516. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa070829.
8. Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Morice MC, et al. Treatment of complex coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes: 5-year results comparing outcomes of bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary interventions in the SYNTAX trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;43(5):1006-1013. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezt386.
9. Banning AP, Westaby S, Morice MC, et al. Diabetic and nondiabetic patients with left main and/or 3-vessel coronary artery disease: comparison of outcomes with cardiac surgery and paclitaxel-eluting stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(11):1067-1075. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.09.065.
10. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(10):961-972. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0804626.
11. Claessen BE, Smits PC, Kereiakes DJ, et al. Impact of lesion complexity and operator technique on outcomes with the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent: insights from the TWENTE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(12):1147-1156. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.06.1172.
12. Guo LW, Zhou YQ, Yang Q, et al. Impact of pre-PCI fractional flow reserve on clinical outcomes in patients with intermediate coronary lesions: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130360.
13. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(11):991-1001. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1205361.
14. Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, et al. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(24):2503-2515. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0805796.