Crusan, Daniel J.

Background— Little is known about the clinical value of stress imaging studies in asymptomatic patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and Results— Residents of Olmsted County, MN, who underwent PCI were followed up for the occurrence of stress imaging (stress nuclear or stress echocardiography), coronary angiography, or coronary artery bypass grafting (without angiography) as initial procedures after PCI. Patients whose first follow-up procedure was a stress imaging test were evaluated for their symptom status at the time of the study and whether they underwent angiography or revascularization (PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting) within 90 days. Of 1848 patients who underwent PCI during the study period, 710 (38%) had stress imaging as their initial procedure after PCI, and 241 (13% of the entire cohort) were asymptomatic at the time of testing. The majority (86%) of these 241 patients underwent PCI for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina. Within 90 days of stress imaging, 16 of the 241 asymptomatic patients underwent angiography, and 2 patients were revascularized. Stratified by timing after PCI, none of 138 asymptomatic patients tested within 2 years of PCI underwent revascularization. Two of 103 asymptomatic patients tested after 2 years from PCI underwent revascularization. Compared with patients who were asymptomatic at the time of stress imaging, patients who did not undergo any follow-up procedures (stress imaging, angiography, or coronary artery bypass grafting) after the index PCI were older, were more likely to have comorbidities, and had significantly greater all-cause mortality ( P <0.001). Conclusions— In a population-based sample of patients undergoing PCI primarily for acute coronary syndromes, 1 in 8 had subsequent stress imaging when they were asymptomatic. These stress imaging tests resulted in further revascularization in <1% of patients. The low rate of downstream revascularization suggests that stress imaging in asymptomatic patients after PCI has low value.

Background: It is unclear if all patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) ultimately develop progressive MS. Onset of progressive disease course seems to be age- rather than disease duration-dependent. Some forms of progressive MS (e.g. primary progressive MS (PPMS)) are uncommon in population-based studies. Ascertainment of patients with PPMS from clinic-based populations can facilitate a powerful comparison of age at progression onset between secondary progressive MS (SPMS) and PPMS but may introduce unclear biases. Objective: Our aim is to confirm that onset of progressive disease course is more relevant to the patient’s age than the presence or duration of a pre-progression relapsing disease course in MS. Methods: We studied a population-based MS cohort ( n =210, RRMS n =109, progressive MS n =101) and a clinic-based progressive MS cohort ( n =754). Progressive course was classified as primary (PPMS; n =322), single attack (SAPMS; n =112) and secondary progressive (SPMS; n =421). We studied demographics (chi 2 or t -test), age-of-progression-onset ( t -test) and time to Expanded Disability Status Scale of 6 (EDSS6) (Kaplan–Meier analyses). Results: Sex ratio ( p =0.58), age at progression onset ( p =0.37) and time to EDSS6 ( p =0.16) did not differ between the cohorts. Progression had developed before age 75 in 99% of patients with known progressive disease course; 38% with RRMS did not develop progression by age 75. Age at progression onset did not differ between SPMS (44.9±9.6), SAPMS (45.5±9.6) and PPMS (45.7±10.8). In either cohort, only 2% of patients had reached EDSS6 before onset of progression. Conclusions: Patients with RRMS do not inevitably develop a progressive disease course. Onset of progression is more dependent on age than the presence or duration of a pre-progression symptomatic disease course. Moderate disability is sustained predominantly after the onset of a progressive disease course in MS.