Published Online
on September 9, 2002

A more recent version of this article appeared on September 24, 2002

This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 106/13/1627    most recent 01.CIR.0000031570.27023.79v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Srinivas, V. S. Articles by Williams, D. O. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Srinivas, V. S. Articles by Williams, D. O. Related Collections Catheter-based coronary interventions: stents Related Article

Submitted on March 8, 2002
Revised on July 12, 2002
Accepted on July 12, 2002

Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Balloon Angioplasty for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease. A Comparison of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry and the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Study

V. S. Srinivas MB, BS, Maria Mori Brooks PhD, Katherine M. Detre MD, DrPH, Spencer B. King III MD, Alice K. Jacobs MD, Janet Johnston PhD, and David O. Williams MD^*

From the Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine (V.S.S.), Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY; Department of Epidemiology (M.M.B., K.M.D., J.J.), University of Pittsburgh, Pa; Fuqua Heart Center (S.B.K.), Atlanta, Ga; Boston University Medical Center (A.K.J.), Boston, Mass; and Division of Cardiology (D.O.W.), Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI.

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: dowilliams{at}lifespan.org.

Background—This investigation compares the results of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with standard balloon angioplasty among patients with multivessel coronary disease. Patients having balloon angioplasty in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) and those within the Dynamic Registry meeting BARI eligibility criteria were studied.

Methods and Results—Clinical features and in-hospital and 1-year outcomes of 857 BARI-eligible patients in the Dynamic Registry (contemporary PCI) were compared with the 904 randomized patients who underwent percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in BARI. Compared with BARI patients, Registry patients had fewer lesions attempted (1.53 versus 2.56, P=0.001), more frequent single-vessel PCI (76% versus 33%, P<0.001), greater use of intracoronary stents (76% versus 1%, P<0.001), and GP IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist (24% versus 0%, P<0.001). Angiographic success was achieved more often among Registry patients (91% versus 72%, P<0.001), whereas abrupt closure (1.5% versus 9.5%, P<0.001) and in-hospital coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) (1.9% versus 10.2%, P<0.001) and myocardial infarction (0.8% versus 2.1%, P=0.025) were less common. No differences were observed in either in-hospital or 1-year death, but 1-year death/myocardial infarction was lower in the Registry. Registry patients had lower 1-year rates of subsequent CABG (8.6% versus 22.7%, P<0.001) and PCI (12.4% versus 22.5%, P<0.001). By multivariate analysis, contemporary PCI was independently associated with reduced risk for in-hospital CABG, 1-year CABG, and 1-year PCI.

Conclusions—Among patients with multivessel disease, contemporary PCI resulted in safer and more durable revascularization. These results support the role of PCI for selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

Key words: angioplasty • coronary disease • stents • registries • trials

Related Article:

A Decade of Improvement in the Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Jeffrey J. Popma, Richard E. Kuntz, and Donald S. Baim
Circulation 2002 106: 1592-1594. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. A. Cavender and E. M. Ohman What Do You Need to Know Before Performing a Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? Circulation, August 5, 2008; 118(6): 609 - 611. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Prasad, C. S. Rihal, R. J. Lennon, H. J. Wiste, M. Singh, and D. R. Holmes Jr Trends in Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusions: A 25-Year Experience From the Mayo Clinic J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 17, 2007; 49(15): 1611 - 1618. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Berry, J.-C. Tardif, and M. G. Bourassa Coronary Heart Disease in Patients With Diabetes: Part II: Recent Advances in Coronary Revascularization J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 13, 2007; 49(6): 643 - 656. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. K. Smith, R. M. Califf, R. H. Tuttle, L. K. Shaw, K. L. Lee, E. R. Delong, R. E. Lilly, M. H. Sketch Jr, E. D. Peterson, and R. H. Jones Selection of surgical or percutaneous coronary intervention provides differential longevity benefit. Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2006; 82(4): 1420 - 1429. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. W. Stone, N. J. Reifart, I. Moussa, A. Hoye, D. A. Cox, A. Colombo, D. S. Baim, P. S. Teirstein, B. H. Strauss, M. Selmon, et al. Percutaneous Recanalization of Chronically Occluded Coronary Arteries: A Consensus Document: Part II Circulation, October 18, 2005; 112(16): 2530 - 2537. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. W. Stone, D. E. Kandzari, R. Mehran, A. Colombo, R. S. Schwartz, S. Bailey, I. Moussa, P. S. Teirstein, G. Dangas, D. S. Baim, et al. Percutaneous Recanalization of Chronically Occluded Coronary Arteries: A Consensus Document: Part I Circulation, October 11, 2005; 112(15): 2364 - 2372. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. B. King III, G. Dangas, J. W. Moses, S. B. King III, G. Dangas, and J. W. Moses Surgery Is Preferred for the Diabetic With Multivessel Disease Circulation, September 6, 2005; 112(10): 1500 - 1515. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. R. Kapadia and D. J. Moliterno Did we enjoy the debate but forget the patient? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 18, 2004; 44(4): 775 - 777. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. J. Epstein, S. S. Rathore, K. G. M. Volpp, and H. M. Krumholz Hospital percutaneous coronary intervention volume and patient mortality, 1998 to 2000: Does the evidence support current procedure volume minimums? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 19, 2004; 43(10): 1755 - 1762. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C Casey and D. P Faxon Multi-vessel coronary disease and percutaneous coronary intervention Heart, March 1, 2004; 90(3): 341 - 346. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. L. Johnson, L. M. Schofield, D. K. Weber, F. Kolodgie, R. Virmani, and B. A. Khaw Uptake of 111In-Z2D3 on SPECT Imaging in a Swine Model of Coronary Stent Restenosis Correlated with Cell Proliferation J. Nucl. Med., February 1, 2004; 45(2): 294 - 299. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V.S. Srinivas, M. M. Brooks, K. M. Detre, J. Johnston, S. B. King III, A. K. Jacobs, and D. O. Williams A Decade of Improvement in the Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Circulation, April 8, 2003; 107 (13): e88 - e88. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Popma, R. E. Kuntz, and D. S. Baim A Decade of Improvement in the Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Circulation, September 24, 2002; 106(13): 1592 - 1594. [Full Text] [PDF]