Role of Routine Follow-up Coronary Angiography After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention　― Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ―

Naoki Misumida; Akihiro Kobayashi; Sun Moon Kim; Ahmed Abdel-Latif; Khaled M Ziada

doi:10.1253/circj.CJ-17-0410

Abstract

Background: Prior studies have shown that routine follow-up coronary angiography (CAG) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) increases the incidence of revascularization without a clear reduction in major adverse clinical events. However, none of these prior studies were adequately powered to evaluate hard clinical endpoints such as myocardial infarction (MI) or death and thus the clinical utility of such practice remains to be determined.

Methods and Results: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that compared clinical outcomes after PCI between patients who underwent routine follow-up CAG and those who only had clinical follow-up. Five randomized trials, totaling 4,584 patients met our inclusion criteria, including studies that used sub-randomization and ones that assigned consecutive patients per study protocol. Our results showed that routine follow-up CAG was associated with a lower rate of MI (odds ratio [OR] 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46–0.91; P=0.01) without reduction in all-cause mortality (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.59–1.28; P=0.48), and a higher rate of target lesion revascularization (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.42–2.11; P<0.001).

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that routine follow-up CAG after PCI was associated with a higher rate of revascularization, but also with a reduction in the rate of subsequent MI. Further studies investigating the potential role of routine follow-up angiography may be warranted.

Routine follow-up coronary angiography (CAG) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is commonly implemented to assess the efficacy and safety of new revascularization devices. Although routine angiographic surveillance has undoubtedly furnished valuable scientific data, contributing to the advancement of coronary intervention, the direct clinical benefits remain poorly defined. In fact, prior studies have shown that routine follow-up CAG following PCI increases repeat revascularization without a clear reduction in myocardial infarction (MI) or death.¹^–³

Accordingly, the 2012 ACCF/SCAI appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization rated follow-up CAG as inappropriate in stable or asymptomatic post-PCI patients, discouraging its universal application.⁴ However, none of the prior studies evaluating the potential benefits of routine angiographic follow-up were adequately powered to evaluate hard clinical endpoints such as MI or death. In this context, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the potential clinical benefits associated with routine follow-up angiography post-PCI.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline.⁵ The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO; CRD42017056193). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through January 2017 using the following search terms: “angiographic follow-up” or “routine coronary angiography” or “follow-up coronary angiography” or “scheduled coronary angiography” or “routine angiography” or “follow-up angiography” or “angiographic surveillance” or “surveillance angiography” or “surveillance coronary angiography”. The search was restricted to randomized controlled trials and there were no language restrictions. Studies were also identified by searching references cited in the screened articles and relevant review articles.

Eligible studies were refined to randomized trials that compared clinical outcomes based on follow-up strategies between routine follow-up CAG and clinical follow-up only in patients who underwent PCI. We also included a study investigating revascularization devices or medications that sub-randomized patients to routine angiography or clinical follow-up only strategies and a study that non-arbitrarily assigned consecutive patients to either strategy per study protocol (such as the one that assigned the first half of the patients to protocol-mandated angiographic follow-up). We did not establish any inclusion or exclusion criteria regarding the timing for follow-up CAG.

Two investigators (N.M. and A.K.) independently assessed trial eligibility using the predefined inclusion criteria. After initial screening of all titles and abstracts of identified articles, potential studies were reviewed in full-text to determine their eligibility. Disagreements were resolved through discussion between the reviewers.

The primary outcome of interest was MI, as defined by each study, and the secondary outcome of interest were all-cause death (or cardiac death, if all-cause death was not reported) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) (or target vessel revascularization, if TLR was not reported).

Relevant data were independently extracted by 2 investigators (N.M. and A.K.). Disagreements were resolved through discussion between the reviewers. Data were abstracted to include the following information: first author’s name, year of publication, study period, country, study design, sample size, clinical characteristics of the study population, definitions of the outcomes used in each study, timing of follow-up CAG, follow-up duration, and incidence of primary and secondary outcomes of interest. Quality assessment for each study was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool.⁶

Statistical Analysis

Summary estimates were calculated as odds ratios [OR] with 95% confidence intervals [CI] using a prespecified random effects model based on DerSimonian and Laird’s meta-analytic statistical method.⁷ In addition, we performed a subgroup analysis according to stent use: (1) studies in which stents (either bare-metal [BMS] or drug-eluting [DES]) were used in more than 80% of the patients and (2) studies in which DES were used in more than 80% of the patients. We performed additional sensitivity analyses using the “one study removed” method by removing individual studies to assess the effect of each study on overall outcome. We also performed a cumulative meta-analysis to examine the stability of our results over time and different standards of therapy. Using the OR log-transformed as an independent variable, meta-regression analysis was performed with prespecified study year as a moderator to test the effect of publication year on the pooled effect measure. The I² index was used to summarize the proportion of total variability in the estimate. The I² statistic is derived from the Q statistic and describes the percentage of total variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity; values of 25%, 50%, and 75% correspond to low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively.⁸^,⁹ Assessment of publication bias using Funnel plot and the Begg’s test was not performed, because of the limited number of included studies. The statistical level of significance was 2-tailed P<0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis version 3.0 software (Biostat, Inc., NJ, USA).

Results

The result of our search strategy is illustrated in Figure 1. Of 843 screened articles, 20 potential studies were reviewed in full-text to determine eligibility. A total of 5 randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria, including 2 studies that used sub-randomization¹^,² and 2 studies that non-arbitrarily assigned consecutive patients to either strategy per study protocol.³^,¹⁰ The total number of patients included in our final analysis was 4,584.

Figure 1.

Flow chart of search strategy according to the PRISMA selection criteria.

The characteristics of included studies and patients are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Two studies were deemed to have a high risk of bias because of the use of cluster assignment instead of formal randomization (Table 3). The 2 most recent studies mainly used DES, and the 2 studies conducted in the 1990 s used either balloon angioplasty or BMS.¹^–³^,¹¹ The majority of the patients who were assigned to angiographic surveillance underwent follow-up angiography. Follow-up duration ranged from 1 to 4.6 years.

Table 1. Characteristics of the Studies Included in a Meta-Analysis of Routine Follow-up Coronary Angiography After PCI

Author	Year of publication	Study country	Study description		Follow-up duration
Ruygrok et al¹	1999	The Netherlands	Sub-randomization in the RCT (Benestent II trial) comparing balloon angioplasty vs. bare-metal stent		1 year
ten Berg et al²	2001	The Netherlands	Sub-randomization in the RCT (BAAS trial) comparing aspirin vs. aspirin plus coumadin		1 year
Pinto et al¹⁰	2006	USA	Cluster assignment (protocol-mandated angiography in the first 536 patients) in the RCT (TAXUS-IV trial) comparing paclitaxel-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stent		1 year
Lansky et al³	2012	USA	Cluster assignment (protocol-mandated angiography in the first 564 patients) in the RCT (SPIRIT III trial) comparing everolimus-eluting stent vs. paclitaxel-eluting stent		3 years
Shiomi et al¹¹	2017	Japan	RCT primarily comparing angiographic follow-up and clinical follow-up		4.6 years (median)
	Study inclusion criteria			Major exclusion criteria
Ruygrok et al¹	Stable or unstable angina			Left main lesion and bifurcation lesion with a large side-branch
ten Berg et al²	Symptomatic CAD			Acute MI within 24 h
Pinto et al¹⁰	Stable or unstable angina with 1 de novo lesion			Acute MI within 72 h, LVEF <25%
Lansky et al³	Stable or unstable angina with 1 or 2 de novo lesion			Acute and recent MI, and left main lesion and bifurcation lesion
Shiomi et al¹¹	All patients who underwent successful PCI without planned staged PCI			No exclusion criteria
	Total sample size	Angiographic follow-up	Clinical follow-up	Timing of follow-up angiography	Rate of follow-up angiography in angiographic follow-up group
Ruygrok et al¹	706*	357	349	6 months	92%
ten Berg et al²	1,058	531	527	6 months	90%
Pinto et al¹⁰	1,118	536	582	9 months	83%
Lansky et al³	1,002	564	438	8 months	77%
Shiomi et al¹¹	700	349	351	8–12 months	85%
	Definition of MI
Ruygrok et al¹	New pathological Q waves, or an increase in serum creatine kinase to more than twice upper limit of normal, together with a pathological increase of myocardial isoenzymes
ten Berg et al²	Prolonged chest pain with new Q waves or a new left bundle-branch block, or a rise in creatine kinase to more than twice upper limit of normal
Pinto et al¹⁰	Pathologic Q waves with an elevated creatine kinase MB fraction level or in the absence of pathologic Q waves, an elevation in creatine kinase levels to more than twice the upper limit of normal with an elevated creatine kinase MB level
Lansky et al³	New pathologic Q waves, or as an elevation of creatine kinase levels to twice the upper limit of normal with an elevated creatine kinase MB level
Shiomi et al¹¹	Defined according to the Academic Research Consortium definitions

*After excluding 121 patients who died or underwent angiography within 6 months. CAD, coronary artery disease; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Table 2. Characteristics of the Patients in Each Study Included in a Meta-Analysis of Routine Follow-up Coronary Angiography After PCI

Author	Age (years)	Male	Hypertension	Diabetes	Dyslipidemia	Smoking
Ruygrok et al¹	59	79%	40%	12%	NA	26%
ten Berg et al²	60	78%	21%	9%	29%	31%
Pinto et al¹⁰	62	72%	70%	24%	67%	44%
Lansky et al³	63	69%	75%	29%	72%	23%
Shiomi et al¹¹	69	79%	76%	45%	78%	18%
	Prior MI	Prior PCI	ACS	BMS use	DES use
Ruygrok et al¹	26%	8%	42%	NA	0%
ten Berg et al²	39%	15%	35%	36%	0%
Pinto et al¹⁰	30%	NA	34%	50%*	50%*
Lansky et al³	NA	NA	20%	0%	100%
Shiomi et al¹¹	18%	32%	37%	15%	85%

*Per study protocol. ACS, acute coronary syndrome; BMS, bare-metal stent; DES, drug-eluting stent; NA, not available. Other abbreviations as in Table 1.

Table 3. Bias Risk Assessment of the Studies Included in a Meta-Analysis of Routine Follow-up Coronary Angiography After PCI

Author	Random sequence generation	Allocation concealment	Blind participants and personnel	Blind outcome assessment	Incomplete outcome data	Selective reporting
Ruygrok et al¹	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Unclear risk	Low risk
ten Berg et al²	Unclear risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Unclear risk	Low risk
Pinto et al¹⁰	High risk	High risk	Low risk	Low risk	Unclear risk	Low risk
Lansky et al³	High risk	High risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk
Shiomi et al¹¹	Unclear risk	Unclear risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk

PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.

The major adverse clinical outcomes from each study are shown in Table 4. Figure 2 illustrates the Forest plot reporting OR with 95% CI for MI, all-cause death and TLR. Routine follow-up CAG was associated with a lower rate of MI (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.46–0.91; P=0.01) without reduction in all-cause death (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.59–1.28; P=0.48), and a higher rate of TLR (OR 1.73: 95% CI 1.42–2.11; P<0.001). No significant change was noted when the data were analyzed using the fixed effects model (data not shown).

Table 4. Clinical Outcomes in Each Study Included in a Meta-Analysis of Routine Follow-up Coronary Angiography After PCI

Author	MI		All-cause death		TLR
Author	Angiographic follow-up	Clinical follow-up	Angiographic follow-up	Clinical follow-up	Angiographic follow-up	Clinical follow-up
Ruygrok et al¹	2/357 (0.6%)	4/349 (1.1%)	3/357 (0.8%)	2/349 (0.6%)	40/357 (11.2%)	21/349 (6.0%)
ten Berg et al²	17/531 (3.2%)	21/527 (4.0%)	6/531 (1.1%)	6/527 (1.1%)	102/531 (19.2%)	61/527 (11.6%)
Pinto et al¹⁰ *	12/536 (2.3%)	27/582 (4.7%)	6/536 (1.1%)	6/582 (1.0%)	64/536 (11.9%)**	39/582 (6.7%)**
Lansky et al³	21/522 (4.0%)	23/412 (5.6%)	9/522 (1.7%)***	7/412 (1.7%)***	55/532 (10.3%)	31/416 (7.5%)
Shiomi et al¹¹	6/349 (1.7%)	9/351 (2.6%)	30/349 (8.6%)	37/351 (10.5%)	34/349 (9.7%)	23/351 (6.6%)

*Event numbers calculated by reported incidences, **target vessel revascularization, ***cardiac death. TLR, target lesion revascularization. Other abbreviations as in Table 1.

Figure 2.

Forest plot of myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, and TLR. Routine follow-up angiography was associated with significant reduction in (A) myocardial infarction (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.46–0.91, P=0.01), but no significant change in (B) all-cause death. Routine follow up angiography was associated with significant increase in (C) TLR (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.42–2.11, P<0.001). CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; MH, Mantel-Haenszel; OR, odds ratio; TLR, target lesion revascularization.

The results from the subgroup analysis according to the type or method of revascularization are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The lower rate of MI with angiographic follow-up was also seen in subgroup analysis where stents (either BMS or DES) were used in more than 80% of patients (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40–0.92; P=0.02).³^,¹⁰^,¹¹ In the subgroup analysis where DES were used in more than 80% of patients, there was a similar but statistically non-significant trend for lower rates of MI in the angiographic follow-up group (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.41–1.18; P=0.18).³^,¹¹ A higher incidence of TLR was seen with angiographic follow-up in all tested subgroups. No significant interactions were noted in the rate of MI and TLR between studies stratified by (1) stent use (either BMS or DES) in >80% of the patients or (2) DES use in >80% of the patients. The higher incidence of TLR with routine angiographic follow-up was less apparent in studies that mainly used DES (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.04–2.10) compared with those that used balloon angioplasty or BMS (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.47–2.37).

Figure 3.

Forest plot of myocardial infarction (MI) according to subgroups. The reduction in MI was significant among studies where stents (either bare-metal or drug-eluting [DES]) were used in more than 80% of patients (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40–0.92; P=0.02). In subgroup analysis where DES were used in more than 80% of patients, there was a similar but statistically non-significant trend for lower rates of MI in the angiographic follow-up group (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.41–1.18; P=0.18). Importantly, no significant interactions were noted in the rate of MI between studies stratified by (1) DES use in >80% of the patients or (2) stent use (either bare-metal or DES) in >80% of the patients. Abbreviations as in Figure 2.

Figure 4.

Forest plot of TLR according to subgroups. The increase in TLR incidence was significant in all tested subgroups. No significant interactions were noted in the rate of TLR between studies stratified by (1) drug-eluting stent use in >80% of the patients or (2) stent use (either bare-metal or drug-eluting stents) in >80% of the patients. Abbreviations as in Figure 2.

Sensitivity analyses using the “one study removed” method did not show significant changes in the summary OR estimates for any outcome assessed (Figure S1). Cumulative meta-analysis showed a relatively stable accumulation of evidence for reduction of MI and increase in TLR associated with angiographic follow-up (Figure S2). Meta-regression analysis showed that treatment effect does not change significantly depending on publication year (Figure S3).

Discussion

Our meta-analysis of 5 randomized trials including 4,584 patients confirmed that routine follow-up CAG following PCI was associated with a higher rate of repeat revascularization. Importantly, our analysis also demonstrated a lower rate of MI associated with routine follow-up CAG post-PCI. Subgroup analysis according to stent use and type of stent showed a similar reduction in MI and increase in TLR associated with routine angiographic follow-up. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis that addresses the potential clinical benefits associated with routine follow-up angiography post-PCI.

Prior studies have repeatedly demonstrated that routine angiographic surveillance increases the rate of TLR without a clear reduction in major adverse cardiac events.¹^–³ However, none of those studies were adequately powered to evaluate hard clinical endpoints such as death or MI. It is important to emphasize that a negative result from an underpowered study does not prove “absence of benefit”. For example, among 17 randomized trials investigating the mortality benefit of β-blocker in heart failure patients between the years 1985 to 1997, only 1 study showed a significant reduction in mortality with β-blocker use while 13 studies demonstrated a similar but statistically non-significant trend towards mortality reduction.¹² However, when a meta-analysis combining the 17 trials was performed, β-blockade treatment was associated with a significant reduction in death with an OR of 0.69 (95% CI 0.54–0.88).¹²

All 5 studies included in our analysis showed a similar trend for reduction in MI with routine angiographic follow-up. No heterogeneity was noted among studies, supporting the robustness of the association between angiographic follow-up and reduction in MI. This interesting and somewhat surprising finding may illustrate an opportunity to further improve clinical outcomes after PCI. Nevertheless, these results should be interpreted with caution given the several reasons described next.

The devices and medications used in the 2 trials from the 1990 s were very different from contemporary practice. Stent use was infrequent and P2Y12 inhibitors (except for ticlopidine) were unavailable during that time. In addition, balloon angioplasty, the mainstay of coronary revascularization during this time, is known to be associated with a significantly higher rate of restenosis and ischemia-driven revascularization compared with stenting.¹³ Thus, the results from these earlier trials may not apply to current practice. Nevertheless, the subgroup analysis of studies that used stents in >80% of the patients showed a similar reduction in MI, supporting the presence of this association applicable to current practice. The reduction in MI was not statistically significant when the inclusion was restricted to the studies that primarily used DES in our analysis. This appears to simply stem from small sample size and small numbers of the clinical events. For example, the most recent trial showed a very low incidence of MI over a median follow-up period of 4.6 years (1.7% vs. 2.6%).¹¹ The absence of significant difference in the reduction of MI in the DES era may also be related to the reduced incidence of restenosis and late stent thrombosis with recent advancement in stent and polymer designs,¹⁴ although our cumulative meta-analysis based on the publication year, as well as the meta-regression analysis, did not show significant effect of the year of publication on the OR of the clinical outcomes. Further studies in the current DES era are awaited.

Despite the observed association between angiographic follow-up and reduction in MI, the presence of an association does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship, because of possible confounders. For example, significant differences in medication regimens may have existed between the 2 groups that underwent angiographic follow-up or clinical follow-up only. Patients who underwent repeat PCI for restenosis during angiographic surveillance may have been treated with a prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), which has been shown to reduce MI based on recent large-scale randomized trials.¹⁵^,¹⁶ In addition, a recent study showed that patients who were treated with 24 months DAPT after PCI for restenosis had a lower rate of death and MI compared with those treated with 6 months of DAPT.¹⁷ Unfortunately, the details of the medications used in each study, especially DAPT, were not reported in the studies included in our analysis.

Presumably, the primary purpose of follow-up CAG in post-PCI patients is to assess the presence of restenosis in stable patients, because acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or refractory angina would warrant repeat CAG regardless of planned follow-up strategy. Early intervention for restenosis following routine angiography can potentially prevent future cardiovascular events, as restenosis may manifest as ACS.¹⁸ Several studies suggested that PCI reduces the incidence of ACS in patients with stable angina.¹⁹^,²⁰ However, in terms of hard clinical endpoints such as MI or death, the current evidence does not support a benefit of PCI in stable patients except for anatomically high-risk subgroup such as those with left main disease.²¹^–²³ Further investigation is warranted to evaluate a potential causality between reduction of MI and angiographic follow-up.

Hypothetically, if a direct causal benefit from angiographic follow-up was present, the extent of benefit may vary according to lesion characteristics, yielding a larger benefit to a subgroup of patients. For example, in patients with a large area of myocardium at risk, such as those with left main disease, either percutaneous or surgical revascularization is recommended to improve survival.²²^,²⁴ Thus, angiographic follow-up in these high-risk patients with subsequent revascularization for hemodynamically significant restenosis may be beneficial. Our meta-analysis did not show a difference in mortality; however, this could be related to a low overall event rates and short-term follow-up. In addition, patients who underwent left main stenting and who may have benefited from such practice were excluded from most of the studies. In the past, according to 2005 ACC/AHA PCI guidelines follow-up angiography was recommended (Class IIa) between 2 and 6 months after PCI in patients who underwent unprotected left main revascularization.²⁵ This recommendation was removed in the 2009 focused update.²⁶ To date, no prior study has prospectively evaluated the clinical effect of follow-up CAG in such high-risk patients. In a recent observational study, the lack of angiographic follow-up was associated with increased mortality in patients who underwent PCI for left main lesion after adjusting for propensity score.²⁷ Although the observed survival benefit was likely inflated by selection bias in that study, the result signifies the need for a prospective study to evaluate the role of follow-up CAG in this specific high-risk subgroup.

Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) CAG appears to be an alternative modality once the clinical decision is made to evaluate in-stent restenosis. Although its lesser invasiveness makes MDCT CAG attractive, the assessment of the in-stent segment is more challenging due to artifacts from stents, compared with assessment of native coronary lesions. The rates of “non-evaluable” segments in stented lesions with use of 64-slice MDCT CAG has been reported to be approximately 12%.²⁸^,²⁹ To date, the clinical effect of routine follow-up MDCT CAG after PCI has not been prospectively evaluated.

Study Limitations

Our meta-analysis has several limitations. First, 2 studies were deemed to have a high risk of bias because of the use of cluster assignment instead of formal randomization. The open-label nature of the trials may also be a potential source for bias. Second, the follow-up duration was not uniform across the studies, which were relatively short, limiting the evaluation of any long-term effect associated with follow-up angiography. Third, although the clinical benefits of invasive intervention should be carefully evaluated by balancing its benefits and risks, the rates of complications related to angiographic follow-up were only available in a limited number of studies. Fourth, as discussed, the results from the trials conducted in 1990 s may not apply to current practice. Lastly, we could not evaluate or exclude the possibility of publication bias related to the limited number of included studies.

In summary, our meta-analysis showed that routine follow-up CAG after PCI was associated with a lower risk of MI and a higher rate of TLR. Considering the potential value of routine angiographic follow-up in reducing MI vs. evidence of increased repeat procedures, and given the hypothesis generating nature of our data, it is prudent to individualize the application of follow-up angiography practice according to various risk factors predicting future ischemic events and possible restenosis. Further studies examining the potential role of routine follow-up angiography, especially in high-risk patients, may be warranted.

Acknowledgments

A.A.-L. is supported by the University of Kentucky Clinical and Translational Science Pilot Award (UL1TR000117), the UK COBRE Early Career Program (P20 GM103527) and the NIH Grant R56 HL124266.

Disclosure of Any Relationship With Industry

None.

Supplementary Files

Supplementary File 1

Figure S1. ‘One study removed’ analysis of (A) myocardial infarction, (B) all-cause mortality and (C) target lesion revascularization showing no significant effect on the removal of any study on the overall cumulative odds ratio estimates.

Figure S2. Cumulative meta-analysis of (A) myocardial infarction, (B) all-cause mortality and (C) target lesion revascularization stratified by the year of publication.

Figure S3. Meta-regression analysis using the log-transformed odds ratio as dependent variable and the year of publication as moderator.

Please find supplementary file(s);

http://dx.doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-17-0410

References

1. Ruygrok PN, Melkert R, Morel MA, Ormiston JA, Bär FW, Fernandez-Avilès F, et al. Does angiography six months after coronary intervention influence management and outcome?: Benestent II Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34: 1507–1511.
2. ten Berg JM, Kelder JC, Suttorp MJ, Verheugt FW, Thijs Plokker HW. Influence of planned six-month follow-up angiography on late outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention: A randomized study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 38: 1061–1069.
3. Lansky AJ, Brar SS, Yaqub M, Sood P, Applegate RJ, Lazar D, et al. Impact of routine angiographic follow-up after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in the SPIRIT III randomized trial at three years. Am J Cardiol 2012; 110: 21–29.
4. Patel MR, Bailey SR, Bonow RO, Chambers CE, Chan PS, Dehmer GJ, et al. ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59: 1995–2027.
5. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015; 349: g7647.
6. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928.
7. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177–188.
8. Huedo-Medina TB, Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F, Botella J. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index? Psychol Methods 2006; 11: 193–206.
9. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557–560.
10. Pinto DS, Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, Hermiller J, O’Shaughnessy C, et al. Impact of routine angiographic follow-up on the clinical benefits of paclitaxel-eluting stents: Results from the TAXUS-IV trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 48: 32–36.
11. Shiomi H, Morimoto T, Kitaguchi S, Nakagawa Y, Ishii K, Haruna Y, et al. The ReACT Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10: 109–117.
12. Heidenreich PA, Lee TT, Massie BM. Effect of beta-blockade on mortality in patients with heart failure: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 30: 27–34.
13. Stone GW, Grines CL, Cox DA, Garcia E, Tcheng JE, Griffin JJ, et al. Comparison of angioplasty with stenting, with or without abciximab, in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 957–966.
14. Philip F, Stewart S, Southard JA. Very late stent thrombosis with second generation drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents: Network meta-analysis of randomized primary percutaneous coronary intervention trials. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 88: 38–48.
15. Mauri L, Kereiakes DJ, Yeh RW, Driscoll-Shempp P, Cutlip DE, Steg PG, et al. Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 2155–2166.
16. Bonaca MP, Bhatt DL, Cohen M, Steg PG, Storey RF, Jensen EC, et al. Long-term use of ticagrelor in patients with prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1791–1800.
17. Campo G, Tebaldi M, Vranckx P, Biscaglia S, Tumscitz C, Ferrari R, et al. Short- versus long-term duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients treated for in-stent restenosis: A PRODIGY trial substudy (Prolonging Dual Antiplatelet Treatment After Grading Stent-Induced Intimal Hyperplasia). J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63: 506–512.
18. Latib A, Mussardo M, Ielasi A, Tarsia G, Godino C, Al-Lamee R, et al. Long-term outcomes after the percutaneous treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4: 155–164.
19. De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NHJ, Barbato E, Tonino P, Piroth Z, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 1208–1217.
20. Nishigaki K, Yamazaki T, Kitabatake A, Yamaguchi T, Kanmatsuse K, Kodama I, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention plus medical therapy reduces the incidence of acute coronary syndrome more effectively than initial medical therapy only among patients with low-risk coronary artery disease a randomized, comparative, multicenter study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 1: 469–479.
21. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1503–1516.
22. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, Collet JP, Cremer J, Falk V, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 2541–2619.
23. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58: e44–e122.
24. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, Berra K, Blankenship JC, Dallas AP, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60: e44–e164.
25. Smith SC, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld JW, Jacobs AK, Kern MJ, King SB, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). Circulation 2006; 113: e166–e286.
26. Kushner FG, Hand M, Smith SC Jr, King SB 3rd, Anderson JL, Antman EM, et al. 2009 focused updates: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2004 guideline and 2007 focused update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines on percutaneous coronary intervention (updating the 2005 guideline and 2007 focused update) a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54: 2205–2241, Erratum in: J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54: 2464, J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 612. Dosage error in article text.
27. Mencel G, Kowalczyk J, Lenarczyk R, Chodór P, Wąs T, Świerad M, et al. The impact of routine angiographic follow-up in a population of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention within the left main coronary artery. Angiology 2016; 67: 742–748.
28. Ehara M, Kawai M, Surmely JF, Matsubara T, Terashima M, Tsuchikane E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of coronary in-stent restenosis using 64-slice computed tomography: Comparison with invasive coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49: 951–959.
29. Mahnken AH. CT imaging of coronary stents: Past, present, and future. ISRN Cardiol 2012; 2012: 1–12.

Corresponding author

Register with J-STAGE for free!