Timing of multivessel revascularization in stable patients with STEMI: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) is recommended in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) without cardiogenic shock. The present network meta-analysis investigated the optimal timing of MV-PCI in this context. METHODS: We pooled the aggregated data from randomized trials investigating stable STEMI patients with multivessel CAD treated with a strategy of either MV-PCI or culprit vessel-only PCI. The primary outcome was all-cause death. The main secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization. RESULTS: Among 11 trials, a total of 10 507 patients were randomly assigned to MV-PCI (same sitting, n=1683; staged during the index hospitalization, n=3460; staged during a subsequent hospitalization within 45 days, n=3275) or to culprit vessel-only PCI (n=2089). The median follow-up was 18.6 months. In comparison with culprit vessel-only PCI, MV-PCI staged during the index hospitalization significantly reduced all-cause death (risk ratio, 0.73; 95%CI, 0.56-0.92; P=.008) and ranked as possibly the best treatment option for this outcome compared with all other strategies. In comparison with culprit vessel-only PCI, a MV-PCI reduced cardiovascular mortality without differences dependent on the timing of revascularization. MV-PCI within the index hospitalization, either in a single procedure or staged, significantly reduced myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, with no significant difference between each other. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD without cardiogenic shock, multivessel PCI within the index hospitalization, either in a single procedure or staged, represents the safest and most efficacious approach. The different timings of multivessel PCI did not result in any significant differences in all-cause death. This study is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023457794).

Modified balloons to prepare severely calcified coronary lesions before stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The performance of modified balloons (namely cutting or scoring balloons) to prepare severely calcified lesions in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. We investigated the clinical and imaging outcomes of patients undergoing PCI assigned to modified balloon therapy to prepare severely calcified coronary lesions before stent implantation. METHODS: In this meta-analysis, we aggregated the study-level data from trials enrolling invasively treated patients who were randomly assigned to modified balloon or control therapy to prepare severely calcified lesions before stenting. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization. The secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome, coronary perforation and final minimal stent area (MSA) as measured by intracoronary imaging. RESULTS: A total of 648 participants in six trials were allocated to modified balloon therapy (n = 335) or control therapy (semi-compliant, non-compliant, or super high-pressure balloon, n = 313). The median follow-up was 11 months. Overall, MACE occurred in 8.96% of patients assigned to a modified balloon and 12.78% of patients assigned to control therapy [risk ratio = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-1.39; P = 0.24]. There was a significant treatment effect-by-modified balloon type interaction for the outcome MACE in patients assigned to cutting balloon compared with control therapy [RR = 0.40 (0.28-0.56), P for interaction (Pint) < 0.001]. Patients treated with a modified balloon compared with control therapy showed neither a significant difference for the other clinical outcomes nor for final MSA [standardized mean difference = 0.67 (- 0.71, 2.06); P = 0.26]. CONCLUSIONS: In patients treated with PCI for severely calcific coronary artery disease a strategy of lesion preparation with a modified balloon before stenting does not improve clinical or imaging outcomes compared with control therapy. The different performance of cutting and scoring balloons warrants further investigation.

Ten-year outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention of in-stent restenosis in saphenous vein grafts.

BACKGROUND: Only few data is available for long-term outcomes of patients being treated for in-stent restenosis (ISR) in saphenous vein grafts (SVG). AIMS: Thus, the aim of this observational, retrospective study was to close this lack of evidence. METHODS: Between January 2007 and February 2021 a total of 163 patients with 186 ISR lesions located in SVG were treated at two large-volume centers in Munich, Germany. Endpoints of interest were all-cause mortality, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI). Furthermore, recurrent ISR were assessed. Outcomes are presented as Kaplan-Meier event rates. RESULTS: Mean age was 72.6 ± 8.6 years, 90.8% were male, 36.8% were diabetics and 42.3% presented an acute coronary syndrome. ISR were treated with DES in 64.0% and with balloon angioplasty (BA) in 36.0%. After 10 years, the rates for all-cause mortality, TVMI and TLR were 58.2%, 15.4%, and 22.6%, respectively. No statistically relevant differences were found between the types of treatment (DES or BA) regarding all-cause mortality (55.7% vs. 63.2%, p = 0.181), TVMI (13.8% vs. 18.6%, p = 0.215) and TLR (21.8% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.764). Median time between first and recurrent ISR was 270.8 days. Recurrent ISR were treated with DES in a comparable proportion as during first ISR (p = 0.075). Independent predictor of TLR is patient age (p = 0.034). The median follow-up duration was 5.1 years (75% CI 2.8; 8.5). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical event rates after intervention of ISR located in SVG are high without statistically relevant differences regarding the type of treatment. However, further studies are needed.

Comparison of long-term outcome in patients with calcified stenosis treated with intravascular lithotripsy or with modified balloon angioplasty: a propensity score-adjusted study.

Background: The aim of this two-center, all-comers registry was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) to that of modified balloon angioplasty (MB). MB angioplasty using a cutting or scoring balloon is commonly used in patients with calcified coronary arteries. IVL is a new technology for lesion preparation. This is the first study to compare MB with IVL. Methods: The cohort included all patients treated by MB angioplasty or IVL between 2019 and 2021. The primary endpoint was strategy success (<20% residual stenosis). The secondary endpoint was long-term safety outcomes [cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), target lesion failure/revascularization (TVR)]. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed in all patients. Primary and secondary endpoints were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) for treatment effect estimation. Results: A total of n = 86 patients were treated by IVL and n = 92 patients by MB angioplasty. The primary endpoint was reached in 152 patients (85.4%). Patients in the IVL group had less residual stenosis (5.8% vs. 22.8%; p = 0.001) in QCA. Weighted multivariable regression analysis revealed that IVL had a significant positive effect on reaching the primary endpoint of strategy success [odds ratio (OR) 24.58; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 7.40-101.86; p = 0.001]. In addition, severe calcification was shown to result in a lower probability of achieving the primary endpoint (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02-0.24; p = 0.001). During the follow-up period (450 days) there was no difference in cardiovascular mortality rate [IVL (n = 5) 2.8% vs. MB (n = 3) 1.7%; p = 0.129]. Patients with unstable angina at the time of the index procedure had the highest probability of cardiovascular death [hazard ratio (HR) 7.136; 95% CI 1.248-40.802; p = 0.027]. No differences were found in long-term rates of AMI (IVL 1.7% vs. MB 2.8%; p = 0.399; IVL HR 2.73; 95% CI 0.4-17.0; p = 0.281) or TVR (IVL 5.6% vs. MB 9%; p = 0.186; IVL HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.277-2.166; p = 0.626). Conclusion: IVL leads to a significantly better angiographic intervention outcome compared to MB angioplasty in our cohort. During long-term follow-up, no differences in cardiovascular mortality, rate of acute myocardial infarction, or target lesion failure/revascularization were observed.

Derivation and validation of the ISAR score to predict the risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention for recurrent drug-eluting stent restenosis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is challenging as it has a high risk of recurrence. AIMS: The aim of this analysis was to develop and validate a model to predict the risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for recurrent DES-ISR. METHODS: A retrospective, observational analysis was performed including consecutive patients treated with PCI for DES-ISR at two centres in Germany. Included patients were randomly divided into training and validation cohorts. Two regression analyses identified factors associated with repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR up to 1 year. The discriminative ability of the resultant model was then compared to a benchmark ISR classification model using bootstrap resampling. A classification and regression tree analysis and a numerical scoring system (the ISAR score) were used to predict the risk of repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR based on the identified predictors. RESULTS: We included 1,986 patients in the current analysis, divided randomly into training (1,471 patients, 1,778 lesions) and validation (515 patients, 614 lesions) cohorts. Four factor variables (a non-focal ISR pattern, a time interval to ISR of <6 months, ISR of the left circumflex artery and ISR in a calcified vessel) were associated with repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR at 1-year follow-up. On bootstrap resampling analysis, the C-statistic for the model including these four variables was 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.63), whereas the C-statistic for the benchmark ISR classification model was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.52-0.57), a difference that was statistically significant (delta C-statistic 0.062; 95% CI: 0.035-0.094; p<0.001). The cumulative incidence of repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR was over three times higher in DES-ISR lesions with an ISAR score of ≥3 in comparison to lesions with an ISAR score of 0. CONCLUSIONS: This study developed and validated a risk prediction model for repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR at 1-year follow-up. This model served to generate the ISAR score, a standardised tool that can be used to predict the 1-year risk of repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR.

Prognostic impact of secondary prevention after coronary artery bypass grafting-insights from the TiCAB trial.

OBJECTIVES: There are disparities in the adherence to guideline-recommended therapies after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). We therefore sought to evaluate the effect of guideline-adherent medical secondary prevention on 1-year outcome after CABG. METHODS: Data were taken from the randomized 'Ticagrelor in CABG' trial. From April 2013 until April 2017, patients who underwent CABG were included. For the present analysis, we compared patients who were treated with optimal medical secondary prevention with those where 1 or more of the recommended medications were missing. RESULTS: Follow-up data at 12 months were available in 1807 patients. About half (54%) of them were treated with optimal secondary prevention. All-cause mortality [0.5% vs 3.5%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.14 (0.05-0.37), P < 0.01], cardiovascular mortality [0.1% vs 1.7%, HR 0.06 (0.01-0.46), P = 0.007] and major adverse events [6.5% vs 11.5%, HR 0.54 (0.39-0.74), P < 0.01] were significantly lower in the group with optimal secondary prevention. The multivariable model for the primary end point based on binary concordance to guideline recommended therapy identified 3 independent factors: adherence to guideline recommended therapy [HR 0.55 (0.39-0.78), P < 0.001]; normal renal function [HR 0.99 (0.98-0.99), P = 0.040]; and off-pump surgery [HR 2.06 (1.02-4.18), P = 0.045]. CONCLUSIONS: Only every second patient receives optimal secondary prevention after CABG. Guideline adherent secondary prevention therapy is associated with lower mid-term mortality and less adverse cardiovascular events after 12 months.

Antithrombotic Therapy With or Without Aspirin After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients Taking Oral Anticoagulation: A Meta-Analysis and Network Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Trials investigating aspirin omission in patients taking oral anticoagulation (OAC) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were not powered to assess rates of major bleeding or ischemic events. METHODS: We performed an updated meta-analysis and network analysis of randomized trials comparing treatment with or without aspirin in patients taking OAC and a P2Y12-inhibitor after PCI or ACS. The primary outcome was TIMI major bleeding. RESULTS: Five trials enrolling 11,542 patients allocated to antithrombotic regimens omitting (n = 5795) or including aspirin (n = 5747) were included. Aspirin omission was associated with a lower risk of TIMI major bleeding (RR = 0.56, 95% CI [0.44-0.71]; P < 0.001) but a trend towards a higher risk of MI (RR = 1.21, 95% CI [0.99-1.47]; P = 0.06), which was significantly higher when only non-vitamin K antagonist OAC (NOAC)-based trials were considered (Pinteraction = 0.02). The risk of stent thrombosis was comparable with both strategies (RR = 1.29, 95% CI [0.87-1.90]; P = 0.20), with a trend towards a higher risk of ST with aspirin omission when only NOAC-based trials were considered (Pinteraction = 0.06). Risks of stroke and death were similar with both strategies. Network meta-analysis ranked dabigatran (low dose) without aspirin as the best strategy for bleeding reduction (P-score = 0.86) and apixaban with aspirin as the best strategy for MI reduction (P-score = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: In patients taking OAC after PCI or ACS, aspirin omission is associated with a lower risk of TIMI major bleeding, with a numerically increased risk of MI, which is statistically significant when only NOAC-based trials are considered. This supports individualization of the treatment regimen based on patient risk.

Antithrombotic treatment in primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Despite a timely mechanical reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) display an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. Several studies have demonstrated that guideline-directed antithrombotic therapy is effective to reduce this risk. However, there is still much to be accomplished to improve antithrombotic therapies in this clinical setting. AREAS COVERED: This paper reviews current data on antithrombotic therapy in STEMI patients undergoing pPCI. EXPERT OPINION: Antithrombotic therapy for STEMI patients undergoing pPCI should take into account the variability of thrombotic and bleeding risk in the short and long term. Patients with STEMI profit from the administration of early onset antiplatelet agents and anticoagulation to achieve sufficient and predictable antithrombotic effect at the time of pPCI. Thereafter, antithrombotic therapies should be tailored to individual risk of recurrence over the long term, to avoid excess bleeding, while ensuring adequate secondary ischemic prevention.

Early Aspirin Discontinuation After Coronary Stenting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background The clinical impact of early aspirin discontinuation compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting remains poorly studied. We investigated the clinical outcomes of patients assigned to either early aspirin discontinuation or DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting. Methods and Results We performed a meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomized clinical trials enrolling participants receiving a percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting and assigned to either early aspirin discontinuation or DAPT. Scientific databases were searched from inception through March 30, 2020. Trial-level hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were pooled using a random effects model with inverse variance weighting. The primary outcome was all-cause death. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, and major bleeding. Overall, 36 206 participants were allocated to either early aspirin discontinuation (experimental therapy, n=18 088) or DAPT (control therapy, n=18 118) in 7 trials. Median follow-up was 12 months. All-cause death occurred in 2.5% of patients assigned to experimental and 2.9% of patients assigned control therapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91, 95% CI, 0.75-1.11; P=0.37). Overall, patients treated with experimental versus control therapy showed no significant difference in terms of myocardial infarction (HR, 1.02 [0.85-1.22], P=0.81), stent thrombosis (HR, 1.02 [0.87-1.20], P=0.83), or stroke (HR, 1.01 [0.68-1.49], P=0.96). However, the risk for major bleeding (HR, 0.58 [0.43-0.77], P<0.01) was significantly reduced by experimental as compared with control therapy. Conclusions In patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and stenting, assigned to a strategy of early aspirin discontinuation versus DAPT, the risk of death and ischemic events is not significantly different but the risk of bleeding is lower.

Angiographic performance of everolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis in daily practice.

OBJECTIVES: The present study aims to analyze the angiographic anti-restenotic performance of durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (EES) for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) in daily practice. BACKGROUND: Randomized data is available supporting the use of drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents for the treatment of ISR; however, additional real-world data including angiographic follow-up is needed. METHODS: Patients who underwent EES-implantation for the treatment of drug-eluting stent ISR and attended for a 6-8 months angiographic surveillance were analyzed. Off-line assessment of the angiograms was conducted at a central quantitative coronary angiographic core laboratory. RESULTS: A total of 426 patients with ISR were treated with EES and had undergone angiographic follow-up. The mean age was 66.8 ± 9.9 years and 27.5% suffered from diabetes. A total of 459 lesions were treated. The diameter stenosis decreased from 64.3 ± 19.1% (preprocedural) to 12.0 ± 6.4% (postprocedural). At 6-8 months angiographic follow-up, the in-segment diameter stenosis was 38.3 ± 21.7% and the in-stent late luminal loss was 0.54 ± 0.74 mm in the treated area analysis. The rate of recurrent binary restenosis was 25.7%. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of ISR, the angiographic anti-restenotic efficacy of stenting with EES is comparable to that observed in randomized clinical trials and less favorable than its performance in patients undergoing stenting for de novo disease.

Outcomes after complete dissolution of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds implanted during routine practice.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Long-term outcomes of unselected patients treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation are lacking, especially for the period after complete dissolution of the BVS. This study sought to evaluate 5-year outcomes in patients treated with BVS in routine practice. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent implantation of everolimus-eluting BVS during routine clinical practice at 2 high-volume centres in Germany were studied. The patients were followed-up for up to 5 years. The primary endpoints of interest were the composite of death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization, as well as definite scaffold thrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 419 patients (mean age 66.6 ± 10.9 years; 31.5% had diabetes) were included, of whom 38.9% presented with an acute coronary syndrome. Of the 527 lesions treated, 49.0% were classified as complex and 13.1% were bifurcation lesions. At 5 years, the composite clinical endpoint occurred in 33.1% of patients and definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 4.7%. Most definite scaffold thrombosis occurred within 2 years after BVS implantation. CONCLUSIONS: In patients treated with BVS implantation in routine clinical practice the rates of adverse clinical events at 5 years were high, including a considerable incidence of scaffold thrombosis.

Long-Term Prognostic Impact of Restenosis of the Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Requiring Repeat Revascularization.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of target lesion revascularization (TLR) of the unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) after stent failure. BACKGROUND: Although drug-eluting stents are safe and effective for treatment of the ULMCA, increased rates of repeat revascularization have been observed. METHODS: This is a patient-level pooled analysis of the randomized ISAR-LEFT-MAIN (Drug-Eluting-Stents for Unprotected Left Main Stem Disease) and ISAR-LEFT-MAIN-2 (Drug-Eluting Stents to Treat Unprotected Coronary Left Main Disease) trials, in which patients underwent stenting of the ULMCA. The present analysis includes patients who underwent angiography during follow-up. Patients with TLR were compared with those without. Additional long-term clinical follow-up after TLR was conducted, and its influence on mortality was evaluated. Mortality was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Predictors of mortality were assessed in a multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1,001 patients were eligible, of whom 166 experienced TLR. The 5-year mortality rate was 30.2% in patients with TLR compared with 17.3% in those without TLR (p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, glomerular filtration rate (-30 ml/min; hazard ratio [HR]: 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.54 to 3.27; p < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR: 4.95; 95% CI: 1.33 to 18.42; p = 0.02), and body mass index (+5 kg/m2; HR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.12 to 2.32; p = 0.01) were independent predictors of mortality after TLR due to left main stent failure. The type of repeat revascularization and the underlying stent did not influence the mortality after TLR of the ULMCA. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality after TLR for left main stent failure is high. Patient-related factors seem to have a greater impact on mortality after TLR than other variables.

Do outcomes following intervention for drug-eluting stent restenosis depend on whether the restenosed stent was polymer-free or polymer-coated?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous intervention for drug-eluting stent (DES) restenosis are poorer than those in patients with bare-metal stent restenosis. It is unknown if this is related to the presence of polymer coating. We sought to compare outcomes after interventions for in-stent restenosis (ISR) of polymer-free DES vs durable polymer DES. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the ISAR-TEST 5 randomized trial who underwent repeat percutaneous intervention for ISR during follow-up were included. Angiographic outcomes at 6 to 8 months and clinical outcomes at 2 years were analyzed and compared between 2 groups according to whether the restenosed stent was a polymer-free or a durable polymer DES. Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for differences between groups. RESULTS: A total of 326 patients with ISR were included: 220 with ISR in polymer-free DES and 106 with ISR in durable polymer DES. Angiographic follow-up was available for 83.4% of patients. No difference was observed in recurrent binary restenosis between the 2 groups (31.7% vs 27.0%; P=.38; Padjusted=.29). At 2 years, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat target lesion revascularization were similar between the 2 groups (35.7% vs 34.0%; HR=1.04, 95%CI, 0.70-1.55; P=.83; Padjusted=.79). The rate of repeat target lesion revascularization was also similar in the 2 groups (29.8% vs 31.5%; HR=0.91, 95%CI, 0.60-1.39; P=.68; Padjusted=.62). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing reintervention for DES-ISR, we found no evidence of differences in outcomes according to whether the restenosed stent was a polymer-free or durable polymer DES.

Randomized trial of ticagrelor vs. aspirin in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting: the TiCAB trial.

AIMS: The antiplatelet treatment strategy providing optimal balance between thrombotic and bleeding risks in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is unclear. We prospectively compared the efficacy of ticagrelor and aspirin after CABG. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned in double-blind fashion patients scheduled for CABG to either ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or 100 mg aspirin (1:1) once daily. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, and stroke 12 months after CABG. The main safety endpoint was based on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification, defined as BARC ≥4 for periprocedural and hospital stay-related bleedings and BARC ≥3 for post-discharge bleedings. The study was prematurely halted after recruitment of 1859 out of 3850 planned patients. Twelve months after CABG, the primary endpoint occurred in 86 out of 931 patients (9.7%) in the ticagrelor group and in 73 out of 928 patients (8.2%) in the aspirin group [hazard ratio 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-1.62; P = 0.28]. All-cause mortality (ticagrelor 2.5% vs. aspirin 2.6%, hazard ratio 0.96, CI 0.53-1.72; P = 0.89), cardiovascular death (ticagrelor 1.2% vs. aspirin 1.4%, hazard ratio 0.85, CI 0.38-1.89; P = 0.68), MI (ticagrelor 2.1% vs. aspirin 3.4%, hazard ratio 0.63, CI 0.36-1.12, P = 0.12), and stroke (ticagrelor 3.1% vs. 2.6%, hazard ratio 1.21, CI 0.70-2.08; P = 0.49), showed no significant difference between the ticagrelor and aspirin group. The main safety endpoint was also not significantly different (ticagrelor 3.7% vs. aspirin 3.2%, hazard ratio 1.17, CI 0.71-1.92; P = 0.53). CONCLUSION: In this prematurely terminated and thus underpowered randomized trial of ticagrelor vs. aspirin in patients after CABG no significant differences in major cardiovascular events or major bleeding could be demonstrated. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01755520.

Prognostic indicators lose their value with repeated resection of colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The liver is the most common site of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and surgical resection improves overall survival in selected patients. Here, we investigate outcomes and relevant prognostic factors after repeated hepatic resections for CRLM. METHODS: From a prospective database, 578 patients who underwent 788 resections of colorectal liver metastases were included into this study. In total, 169 patients underwent a second and 41 patients had a third operation due to intrahepatic metastatic recurrence. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine prognostic risk factors. RESULTS: 5-year overall survival was 36.7% (95% CI: 30.2%; 43.2%) and 10-year survival was 20.3% (95% CI: 7.6%; 33.0%) in patients undergoing single resection. In patients undergoing a second or third resection, 5- and 10-year survival rates were 56.6% (95% CI: 45.0%; 68.2%) and 21.9% (95% CI: 6.8%; 37.0%) or 53.2% (95% CI: 32.4%; 74.0%) and 25.4%, respectively. In patients undergoing single resection, established markers (number, size and pattern of CRLM [p = 0.030/0.015/<0.001], R-status [p = 0.001], surgical/medical complications [p = 0.001/0.008], CEA-level [p = 0.001] and Fong-Score [p = 0.02]) were significantly associated with survival. In patients undergoing three resections, the only predictive markers were pT-stage of the primary tumor in univariate analysis (p = 0.013) and metachronous metastasis and medical complications in multivariate analysis (p = 0.001/0.025). The Fong-Score had no predictive value in patients undergoing two (p = 0.08) or three (p = 0.7) resections. CONCLUSION: Established prognostic indicators are not applicable in patients undergoing repeated CRLM resection. In a highly-selected group of patients, repeated hepatic resections can be performed safely with favorable long-term outcomes.