Why the study?
Do patients with acute coronary syndrome and normal coronary angiography have better long-term clinical outcomes compared to those with obstructive coronary lesions?
Do patients with acute coronary syndrome and normal coronary angiography have better long-term clinical outcomes compared to those with obstructive coronary lesions?
Patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome but normal coronary angiography have an excellent 3-year prognosis compared to those with obstructive coronary disease.
Supports excellent prognosis in ACS with normal angiography; leaves open whether culprit identification refines risk stratification in prospective cohorts.
OBJECTIVE: The present study was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes and investigate prognostic factors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with normal coronary angiography. METHODS: The study was a retrospective cohort of 736 adult patients admitted with ACS between April 2007 and March 2008. After 3 years of follow-up, data regarding the following endpoints were obtained: death (cardiac and noncardiac), nonfatal myocardial infarction, and recurrent angina leading to repeated coronary angiography. The analysis focused on patients with a culprit lesion (n=678) and on those without a culprit lesion (n=51). RESULTS: Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were significantly more frequent in the group with culprit lesions than in the group without culprit lesions (P<0.05). The frequency of MACE-free survival was significantly lower in the group with culprit lesions than in the group without culprit lesions (P=0.0016). Diabetes mellitus was a significant independent predictor of poor prognosis. CONCLUSION: ACS patients without culprit lesions have an excellent prognosis for MACE after 3 years of follow-up compared with patients with obstructive ACS. Diabetes mellitus predicts adverse outcome in ACS patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: