Routine Angiographic Follow-Up versus Clinical Follow-Up after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction

Differences in the utility of routine angiographic follow-up (RAF) and clinical follow-up (CF) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are not well understood. The present study aimed to compare the 3-year clinical outcomes of RAF and CF in AMI patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES). A total of 774 consecutive AMI patients who underwent PCI with DES were enrolled. RAF was performed at 6 to 9 months after index PCI (n=425). The remaining patients were medically managed and clinically followed (n=349); symptom-driven events were captured. To adjust for any potential confounders, a propensity score matched analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, and two propensity-matched groups (248 pairs, n=496, C-statistic=0.739) were generated. Cumulative clinical outcomes up to 3 years were compared between RAF and CF groups. During the 3-year follow-up period, the cumulative incidences of revascularization [target lesion revascularization: hazard ratio (HR), 2.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-4.85; p=0.015, target vessel revascularization (TVR): HR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.69-6.58; p=0.001, non-TVR: HR, 5.64; 95% CI, 1.90-16.6; p=0.002] and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; HR, 3.32; 95% CI, 1.92-5.73; p