Routine Functional Testing or Standard Care in High-Risk Patients after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Current Cardiology Reports Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-09 DOI:10.1007/s11886-024-02064-z
Nouman Arshad, Indah Sukmawati, Upul Wickramarachchi, Shrilla Banerjee, Fathima Aaysha Cader
{"title":"Routine Functional Testing or Standard Care in High-Risk Patients after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.","authors":"Nouman Arshad, Indah Sukmawati, Upul Wickramarachchi, Shrilla Banerjee, Fathima Aaysha Cader","doi":"10.1007/s11886-024-02064-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This review aimed to collate the available evidence on outcomes following routine functional stress testing vs standard of care (i.e. symptom-guided stress testing) in high-risk patients following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The most recent pragmatic POST-PCI trial provided randomized evidence showing that routine functional stress testing post-PCI did not lead to a reduction in 2-year ischemic cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality, as compared to a symptom-guided standard-of-care approach. This was also true for sub-analyses including multivessel or left main disease, diabetics, as well as following imaging or physiology guided PCI. In the absence of a change in their clinical or functional status suggestive of stent failure, post-PCI routine periodic stress testing in stable patients on guideline-directed medical therapy is currently not recommended by American clinical practice guidelines. While evidence on the cost-effectiveness of routine stress testing strategy is scarce, physician, payer, and policy-level interventions to reduce inappropriate use of routine functional testing need to be addressed.</p>","PeriodicalId":10829,"journal":{"name":"Current Cardiology Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Cardiology Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-024-02064-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: This review aimed to collate the available evidence on outcomes following routine functional stress testing vs standard of care (i.e. symptom-guided stress testing) in high-risk patients following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Recent findings: The most recent pragmatic POST-PCI trial provided randomized evidence showing that routine functional stress testing post-PCI did not lead to a reduction in 2-year ischemic cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality, as compared to a symptom-guided standard-of-care approach. This was also true for sub-analyses including multivessel or left main disease, diabetics, as well as following imaging or physiology guided PCI. In the absence of a change in their clinical or functional status suggestive of stent failure, post-PCI routine periodic stress testing in stable patients on guideline-directed medical therapy is currently not recommended by American clinical practice guidelines. While evidence on the cost-effectiveness of routine stress testing strategy is scarce, physician, payer, and policy-level interventions to reduce inappropriate use of routine functional testing need to be addressed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经皮冠状动脉介入术后高危患者的常规功能测试还是标准护理?
综述目的:本综述旨在整理经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后高风险患者常规功能性压力测试与标准治疗(即症状指导下的压力测试)结果的现有证据:最近的实用POST-PCI试验提供的随机证据显示,与症状指导下的标准护理方法相比,PCI术后常规功能性压力测试并不能减少2年缺血性心血管事件或全因死亡率。包括多血管或左主干疾病、糖尿病患者以及影像学或生理学指导下的PCI在内的子分析也是如此。如果患者的临床或功能状态没有发生提示支架失效的变化,美国临床实践指南目前并不推荐对接受指南指导的药物治疗的稳定期患者进行PCI后常规定期压力测试。虽然有关常规压力测试策略成本效益的证据并不多,但仍需从医生、支付方和政策层面进行干预,以减少常规功能测试的不当使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Current Cardiology Reports
Current Cardiology Reports CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.70%
发文量
209
期刊介绍: The aim of this journal is to provide timely perspectives from experts on current advances in cardiovascular medicine. We also seek to provide reviews that highlight the most important recently published papers selected from the wealth of available cardiovascular literature. We accomplish this aim by appointing key authorities in major subject areas across the discipline. Section editors select topics to be reviewed by leading experts who emphasize recent developments and highlight important papers published over the past year. An Editorial Board of internationally diverse members suggests topics of special interest to their country/region and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research. We also provide commentaries from well-known figures in the field.
期刊最新文献
Cardiovascular Outcomes of Uric Acid Lowering Medications: A Meta-Analysis. The Role of Subcutaneous Furosemide in Heart Failure Management: A Systematic Review. In Vivo and In Vitro Approaches to Modeling Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome. Echocardiography for Management of Cardiovascular Disease in Pregnancy. The Price We Pay for Progression in Shock Care: Economic Burden, Accessibility, and Adoption of Shock-Teams and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1