Intentional coronary revascularization versus conservative therapy in patients after peripheral artery revascularization due to critical limb ischemia: the INCORPORATE trial

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2024年7月11日

查看全文

Gabor G Toth,
Marianne Brodmann,
Sadeek S Kanoun Schnur,
Stanislaw Bartus,
Mislav Vrsalovic,
Oleg Krestianinov,
Petr Kala,
Jacek Bil,
Robert Gil,
Jan Kanovsky,
Luigi Di Serafino,
Luca Paolucci,
Emanuele Barbato,
Fabio Mangiacapra,
Zoltan Ruzsa

摘要

Objectives

INCORPORATE trial was designed to evaluate whether default coronary-angiography (CA) and ischemia-targeted revascularization is superior compared to a conservative approach for patients with treated critical limb ischemia (CLI). Registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03712644) on October 19, 2018.

Background

Severe peripheral artery disease is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and poor outcomes.

Methods

INCORPORATE was an open-label, prospective 1:1 randomized multicentric trial that recruited patients who had undergone successful CLI treatment. Patients were randomized to either a conservative or invasive approach regarding potential coronary artery disease (CAD). The conservative group received optimal medical therapy alone, while the invasive group had routine CA and fractional flow reserve-guided revascularization. The primary endpoint was myocardial infarction (MI) and 12-month mortality.

Results

Due to COVID-19 pandemic burdens, recruitment was halted prematurely. One hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled. Baseline cardiac symptoms were scarce with 92% being asymptomatic. Eighty-nine patients were randomized to the invasive approach of whom 73 underwent CA. Thirty-four percent had functional single-vessel disease, 26% had functional multi-vessel disease, and 90% achieved complete revascularization. Conservative and invasive groups had similar incidences of death and MI at 1 year (11% vs 10%; hazard ratio 1.21 [0.49–2.98]). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) trended for hazard in the Conservative group (20 vs 10%; hazard ratio 1.94 [0.90–4.19]). In the per-protocol analysis, the primary endpoint remained insignificantly different (11% vs 7%; hazard ratio 2.01 [0.72–5.57]), but the conservative approach had a higher MACCE risk (20% vs 7%; hazard ratio 2.88 [1.24–6.68]).

Conclusion

This trial found no significant difference in the primary endpoint but observed a trend of higher MACCE in the conservative arm.

Graphical Abstract

A graphical abstract illustrating the key highlights of the design and comparisons