C-reactive protein and prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention and bypass graft surgery for left main coronary artery disease: Analysis from the EXCEL trial

23Citations
Citations of this article
63Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: The prognostic impact of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is unknown. We sought to determine the effect of elevated baseline CRP levels on the 3-year outcomes after LMCAD revascularization and to examine whether CRP influenced the relative outcomes of PCI versus CABG. Methods: In the EXCEL trial, patients with LMCAD and Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) scores ≤32 were randomized to PCI versus CABG. The primary composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke was analyzed according to baseline CRP levels. Results: Among 999 patients with available CRP levels, median CRP was 3.10 mg/L (interquartile range 1.12-6.40 mg/L). The rate of the primary composite end point of death, MI, or stroke at 3 years steadily increased with greater baseline CRP levels. The adjusted relationship between the 3-year composite rate of death, MI, or stroke and baseline CRP modeled as a continuous log-transformed variable demonstrated steadily increasing event rates with greater CRP levels (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.26, 95% CI 1.10-1.44, P =.0008). Similarly, patients with CRP ≥10 mg/L had a 3-fold higher risk of the 3-year primary end point compared to patients with lower CRP levels (adjusted hazard ratio 2.92, 95% CI 1.88-4.54, P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kosmidou, I., Redfors, B., Chen, S., Crowley, A., Lembo, N. J., Karmpaliotis, D., … Stone, G. W. (2019). C-reactive protein and prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention and bypass graft surgery for left main coronary artery disease: Analysis from the EXCEL trial. American Heart Journal, 210, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2018.12.013

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free