Yongwhan Lim, Jaehyuk Jang, Seung Hun Lee, Joon Ho Ahn, Young Joon Hong, Youngkeun Ahn, Myung Ho Jeong, Chan Joon Kim, Joo-Yong Hahn, Joo Myung Lee, Keun Ho Park, Eun Ho Choo, Sung Gyun Ahn, Joon-Hyung Doh, Sang Yeub Lee, Sang Don Park, Hyun-Jong Lee, Min Gyu Kang, Yun-Kyeong Cho, Chang Wook Nam, Sung Hyun Bu, Min Chul Kim
{"title":"急性心肌梗死非元凶动脉的分期与立即完全血运重建术:FRAME-AMI的事后分析","authors":"Yongwhan Lim, Jaehyuk Jang, Seung Hun Lee, Joon Ho Ahn, Young Joon Hong, Youngkeun Ahn, Myung Ho Jeong, Chan Joon Kim, Joo-Yong Hahn, Joo Myung Lee, Keun Ho Park, Eun Ho Choo, Sung Gyun Ahn, Joon-Hyung Doh, Sang Yeub Lee, Sang Don Park, Hyun-Jong Lee, Min Gyu Kang, Yun-Kyeong Cho, Chang Wook Nam, Sung Hyun Bu, Min Chul Kim","doi":"10.3389/fcvm.2024.1475483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The optimal timing for complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) remain uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This post-hoc analysis of the FRAME-AMI trial included AMI patients with MVD (<i>n</i> = 549). They were classified into immediate (<i>n</i> = 329) and staged CR (<i>n</i> = 220) groups. All percutaneous coronary interventions were performed during inex hospitalization. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, and repeated revascularization. Secondary endpoints included each component of the primary endpoint. Additional comparisons for the outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence of the primary endpoint was not significantly different in any of the AMI patients [12.7% [immediate CR] vs. 17.4% [staged CR], <i>p</i> = 0.905, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] of staged CR = 0.81, 95% confidence interval = 0.43-1.53, <i>p</i> = 0.528]. Other secondary endpoints were also not significantly different. Analyses of STEMI and Neither the primary or secondary endpoints of NSTEMI patients were significantly different.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this post-hoc analysis of the FRAME-AMI trial, no significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between the immediate and staged CR strategies for AMI with MVD and the subgroups, such as STEMI or NSTEMI. However, the results should be interpreted carefully because of the many limitations, including a limited sample size and a lack of statistical power. <b>Trial Registration:</b> FRAME-AMI clinicaltrials.gov, identifier (NCT02715518).</p>","PeriodicalId":12414,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":"11 ","pages":"1475483"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11669547/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Staged versus immediate complete revascularization for non-culprit arteries in acute myocardial infarction: a post-hoc analysis of FRAME-AMI.\",\"authors\":\"Yongwhan Lim, Jaehyuk Jang, Seung Hun Lee, Joon Ho Ahn, Young Joon Hong, Youngkeun Ahn, Myung Ho Jeong, Chan Joon Kim, Joo-Yong Hahn, Joo Myung Lee, Keun Ho Park, Eun Ho Choo, Sung Gyun Ahn, Joon-Hyung Doh, Sang Yeub Lee, Sang Don Park, Hyun-Jong Lee, Min Gyu Kang, Yun-Kyeong Cho, Chang Wook Nam, Sung Hyun Bu, Min Chul Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fcvm.2024.1475483\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The optimal timing for complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) remain uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This post-hoc analysis of the FRAME-AMI trial included AMI patients with MVD (<i>n</i> = 549). They were classified into immediate (<i>n</i> = 329) and staged CR (<i>n</i> = 220) groups. All percutaneous coronary interventions were performed during inex hospitalization. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, and repeated revascularization. Secondary endpoints included each component of the primary endpoint. Additional comparisons for the outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence of the primary endpoint was not significantly different in any of the AMI patients [12.7% [immediate CR] vs. 17.4% [staged CR], <i>p</i> = 0.905, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] of staged CR = 0.81, 95% confidence interval = 0.43-1.53, <i>p</i> = 0.528]. Other secondary endpoints were also not significantly different. Analyses of STEMI and Neither the primary or secondary endpoints of NSTEMI patients were significantly different.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this post-hoc analysis of the FRAME-AMI trial, no significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between the immediate and staged CR strategies for AMI with MVD and the subgroups, such as STEMI or NSTEMI. However, the results should be interpreted carefully because of the many limitations, including a limited sample size and a lack of statistical power. <b>Trial Registration:</b> FRAME-AMI clinicaltrials.gov, identifier (NCT02715518).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"1475483\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11669547/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1475483\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1475483","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景和目的:急性心肌梗死(AMI)和多血管疾病(MVD)患者完全血运重建术(CR)的最佳时机仍不确定。方法:这项FRAME-AMI试验的事后分析纳入了AMI合并MVD的患者(n = 549)。分为即刻组(n = 329)和分期组(n = 220)。所有经皮冠状动脉介入治疗均在住院期间进行。主要终点为全因死亡、急性心肌梗死和反复血运重建术。次要终点包括主要终点的每个组成部分。另外还对st段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)和非STEMI (NSTEMI)的结果进行了比较。结果:AMI患者的主要终点发生率无显著差异[12.7%[即时CR] vs. 17.4%[分期CR], p = 0.905,分期CR的校正风险比[HR] = 0.81, 95%可信区间= 0.43-1.53,p = 0.528]。其他次要终点也无显著差异。STEMI分析和NSTEMI患者的主要终点和次要终点均无显著差异。结论:在FRAME-AMI试验的回顾性分析中,观察到急性心肌梗死合并MVD的即时和分期CR策略与亚组(如STEMI或NSTEMI)之间的临床结果没有显著差异。然而,由于许多限制,包括有限的样本量和缺乏统计能力,结果应该仔细解释。试验注册:FRAME-AMI clinicaltrials.gov,标识符(NCT02715518)。
Staged versus immediate complete revascularization for non-culprit arteries in acute myocardial infarction: a post-hoc analysis of FRAME-AMI.
Background and objectives: The optimal timing for complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) remain uncertain.
Methods: This post-hoc analysis of the FRAME-AMI trial included AMI patients with MVD (n = 549). They were classified into immediate (n = 329) and staged CR (n = 220) groups. All percutaneous coronary interventions were performed during inex hospitalization. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, and repeated revascularization. Secondary endpoints included each component of the primary endpoint. Additional comparisons for the outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) were also performed.
Results: The incidence of the primary endpoint was not significantly different in any of the AMI patients [12.7% [immediate CR] vs. 17.4% [staged CR], p = 0.905, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] of staged CR = 0.81, 95% confidence interval = 0.43-1.53, p = 0.528]. Other secondary endpoints were also not significantly different. Analyses of STEMI and Neither the primary or secondary endpoints of NSTEMI patients were significantly different.
Conclusions: In this post-hoc analysis of the FRAME-AMI trial, no significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between the immediate and staged CR strategies for AMI with MVD and the subgroups, such as STEMI or NSTEMI. However, the results should be interpreted carefully because of the many limitations, including a limited sample size and a lack of statistical power. Trial Registration: FRAME-AMI clinicaltrials.gov, identifier (NCT02715518).
期刊介绍:
Frontiers? Which frontiers? Where exactly are the frontiers of cardiovascular medicine? And who should be defining these frontiers?
At Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine we believe it is worth being curious to foresee and explore beyond the current frontiers. In other words, we would like, through the articles published by our community journal Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, to anticipate the future of cardiovascular medicine, and thus better prevent cardiovascular disorders and improve therapeutic options and outcomes of our patients.