Key result
Routine angiographic follow-up linked to ~97% higher 5-year TLR despite lower late mortality.
Why the study?
Routine angiographic follow-up after DES implantation generally does not improve outcomes, but patients with multivessel disease have worse outcomes than those with single-vessel disease and may require closer monitoring.
Does routine angiographic follow-up improve 5-year major clinical outcomes compared to clinical follow-up in patients with multivessel disease treated with drug-eluting stents?
Cohort (n=1,774)
Does routine angiographic follow-up improve 5-year major clinical outcomes compared to clinical follow-up in patients with multivessel disease treated with drug-eluting stents?
In patients with multivessel disease undergoing PCI with DES, routine angiographic follow-up is associated with higher overall revascularization rates but lower all-cause mortality, MACE, and MACCE beyond 1 year compared to clinical follow-up alone.
Background Routine angiographic follow-up (RAF) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation generally does not improve clinical outcomes and may increase revascularization rates. However, patients with multivessel disease (MVD) may require closer monitoring due to worse clinical outcomes compared with those with single-vessel disease. We evaluated the impact of RAF on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with MVD treated with DES. Methods This study included 1,774 patients with MVD treated with DES between January 2004 and June 2021. Patients who experienced unexpected death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or revascularization within 6 months post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were excluded. RAF was defined as scheduled angiography performed at the physician's discretion. Patients were categorized into two groups: the clinical follow-up (CF) group (n = 1,024) and the RAF group (n = 750). We compared 5-year major clinical outcomes between the groups using propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust for baseline confounders. Results After PSM, 624 matched pairs were generated, with well-balanced baseline characteristics between the CF and RAF groups. Up to 5 years, the RAF group had significantly higher rates of target lesion revascularization (HR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.29–3.01) and target vessel revascularization (HR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.25–2.46), but showed a trend toward lower all-cause mortality (HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.37–1.01, P = 0.055). In a landmark analysis beyond 1 year, the RAF group showed no significant difference in repeat PCI, but demonstrated significantly lower all-cause mortality (HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31–0.94), as well as lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48–0.95) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.50–0.95) compared with the CF group. Conclusions In patients with MVD treated with DES, RAF was associated with higher revascularization rates compared to CF. However, RAF may be associated with improved survival and better long-term composite clinical outcomes.RAF_MVD_PCI -Rha.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rha et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Multivessel coronary artery disease treated with drug-eluting stents (n=1,774). Routine angiographic follow-up (RAF) vs. Clinical follow-up (CF) was evaluated on 5-year target lesion revascularization (among major clinical outcomes including TVR, all-cause mortality, MACE, and MACCE) (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.29-3.01). Routine angiographic follow-up increased 5-year target lesion revascularization (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.29-3.01) but lowered mortality beyond 1 year (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.94) vs clinical follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: