Key result
Coronary artery ectasia in AMI is linked to ~119% higher 5-year MACE risk.
Why the study?
Prognostic data for coronary artery ectasia patients with coronary heart disease and acute myocardial infarction were lacking.
Does the presence of coronary artery ectasia worsen the 5-year prognosis in patients with coronary heart disease or acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=965)
No
Does the presence of coronary artery ectasia worsen the 5-year prognosis in patients with coronary heart disease or acute myocardial infarction?
Hazard Ratio: 2.189 (95% CI 1.225–3.914)
Absolute Event Rate: 62.7% vs 79.7%
p-value: p=0.010
Coronary artery ectasia significantly worsens the 5-year prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease, increasing the risk of recurrent AMI and angina.
CAE with AMI or CHD signals higher 5-year MACE risk than non-CAE counterparts; leaves open optimal management strategies pending prospective trials.
Background Most of coronary artery ectasia (CAE) patients have comorbid coronary atherosclerosis. It was lack of prognostic data for CAE patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and for whom with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Objective To determine the overall prognosis for CAE patients. Materials and methods This study was a retrospective cohort study. Fifty-one patients with CAE and comorbid AMI (CAE + AMI) and 108 patients with CAE and comorbid CHD (CAE + CHD) were enrolled and matched to non-CAE subjects at a ratio of 1:3 using a propensity score method, respectively. Controls for CAE + AMI group were 153 AMI patients, controls for CAE group were 324 CHD patients and 329 participants with relatively normal coronary arteries (CON). We followed them up to observe major cardiovascular events (MACE). Results The Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the prognosis in CAE + AMI group was worse than in AMI group (5-year non-MACE rate: 62.70% vs. 79.70%, P = 0.010), the prognosis in CAE group was worse than in CHD and CON groups (5-year non-MACE rate: 74.10% vs. 85.80% and 96.70%, respectively, P = 0.000). The main MACEs in CAE + AMI and CAE groups were AMI reoccurrence (19.61% vs. 4.57%, P = 0.002) and re-hospitalization due to repeated angina pectoris (14.81% vs. 8.33% and 2.74%, P = 0.000), respectively. Additionally, the COX regression analysis revealed that the protective factors for preventing MACE in CAE + AMI group included antiplatelet agents (hazard ratio = 0.234, P = 0.016) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor inhibitor (ACEI/ARB, hazard ratio = 0.317, P = 0.037). Whereas the main factor promoting MACE in CAE group was the degree of coronary stenosis (Gensini score, hazard ratio = 1.011, P = 0.022). Conclusion The prognosis of patients with CAE + AMI was worse than that of those with AMI. The overall prognosis of patients with CAE was worse than that of those with CHD. CAE + AMI and CAE groups had different characteristics; the former was prone to AMI reoccurrence, and the latter was prone to repeated angina pectoris. To prevent MACE, medications, including antiplatelets and ACEI/ARBs, are indicated for patients with CAE + AMI, whereas prevention of the progression of atherosclerotic lesions is indicated for patients with CAE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery ectasia with coronary atherosclerosis (n=965). Coronary artery ectasia vs. Matched patients without coronary artery ectasia was evaluated on 5-year non-MACE rate (CAE+AMI vs AMI) (HR 2.189, 95% CI 1.225-3.914, p=0.010). Coronary artery ectasia with comorbid acute myocardial infarction was associated with a significantly worse 5-year non-MACE rate compared to acute myocardial infarction alone (62.70% vs. 79.70%, HR 2.189).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: