• Suk-Min Seo, Tae-Hoon Kim, Yoon-Seok Koh, Sung-Ho Her, Dong Il Shin, Hun-Jun Park, Pum-Joon Kim, Chul Soo Park, Jong Min Lee, Dong-Bin Kim, Hee-Yeol Kim, Kiyuk Chang, Ki-Dong Yoo, Doo Soo Jeon, Wook-Sung Chung, Ki-Bae Seung, and CathOlic University of Korea – percutAneous Coronary inTervention registry investigators.
• aCardiovascular Center and Cardiology Division, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Incheon bCardiovascular Center and Cardiology Division, Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Uijeongbu cCardiovascular Center and Cardiology Division, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea dCardiovascular Center and Cardiology Division, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea eCardiovascular Center and Cardiology Division, St. Paul's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul fCardiovascular Center and Cardiology Division, Daejeon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Daejeon gCardiovascular Center and Cardiology Division, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Bucheon hCardiovascular Center and Cardiology Division, St Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
• Coron. Artery Dis. 2016 Mar 1; 27 (2): 143-50.

BackgroundAlthough randomized clinical trials are valuable tools to compare treatment effects, the results of randomized clinical trials cannot usually be extrapolated to the real-world setting because of selected patient subsets. To categorize the risk of future cardiovascular events in drug-eluting stent (DES)-treated patients, we analyzed demographic, clinical, and procedural data in all-comers who underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).MethodsPatients who underwent PCI using DES from January 2004 were prospectively enrolled in the Catholic University of Korea-PCI registry and were followed up for a median of 2 years. We analyzed the risk of clinical outcomes in the all-patient cohort and in subsets of patients with angina and acute myocardial infarction (AMI).ResultsThe patients were categorized into two groups: those with angina (angina group, n=6183, 67.7%) and those with AMI (AMI group, n=2944, 32.3%). The AMI group had greater occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) during long-term follow-up than the angina group (23.8 vs. 20.1%, P<0.001). However, in the landmark analysis of data beyond 1 year, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of MACE between the two groups (P=0.44). In multivariable modeling, age, renal function, left ventricular ejection fraction, and multivessel disease were associated significantly with increasing MACE in the study population, angina or AMI groups.ConclusionWe found that higher MACE in patients with AMI during long-term follow-up after PCI was mainly because of higher mortality in the first year. Some demographic, clinical, and angiographic factors still significantly influence the long-term occurrence of MACE in the era of DES.

20 keywords...

hide…