Effects of Optimal Medical Treatment With or Without Coronary Revascularization on Angina and Subsequent Revascularizations in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

Background-In the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial, an initial strategy of coronary revascularization and optimal medical treatment (REV) compared with an initial optimal medical treatment with the option of subsequent revascularization (MED) did not reduce all-cause mortality or the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease. In the same population, we tested whether the REV strategy was superior to the MED strategy in preventing worsening and new angina and subsequent coronary revascularizations. Methods and Results-Among the 2364 men and women (mean age, 62.4 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus, documented coronary artery disease, and myocardial ischemia, 1191 were randomized to the MED and 1173 to the REV strategy preselected in the percutaneous coronary intervention (796) and coronary artery bypass graft (377) strata. Compared with the MED strategy, the REV strategy at the 3-year follow-up had a lower rate of worsening angina (8% versus 13%; P < 0.001), new angina (37% versus 51%; P = 0.001), and subsequent coronary revascularizations (18% versus 33%; P < 0.001) and a higher rate of angina-free status (66% versus 58%; P = 0.003). The coronary artery bypass graft stratum patients were at higher risk than those in the percutaneous coronary intervention stratum, and had the greatest benefits from REV. Conclusions-In these patients, the REV strategy reduced the occurrence of worsening angina, new angina, and subsequent coronary revascularizations more than the MED strategy. The symptomatic benefits were observed particularly for high-risk patients.

Coronary Revascularization Induces a Shift From Cardiac Toward Noncardiac Mortality Without Improving Survival in Vascular Surgery Patient

OBJECTIVE: Although evidence has shown that ischemic heart disease (IHD) in vascular surgery patients has a negative impact on the prognosis after surgery, it is unclear whether directed treatment of IHD may influence cause-specific and overall mortality. The objective of this study was to determine the prognostic implication of coronary revascularization (CR) on overall and cause-specific mortality in vascular surgery patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid artery stenosis, or peripheral artery disease in a university hospital in The Netherlands between January 2003 and December 2011 were retrospectively included. Survival estimates were obtained by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1104 patients were included. Adjusted survival analyses showed that IHD significantly increased the risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.87) and cardiovascular death (HR, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.76). Compared with those without CR, patients previously undergoing CR had similar overall mortality (HR, 1.38 vs 1.62; P = .274) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.83 vs 2.02; P = .656). Nonrevascularized IHD patients were more likely to die of IHD (6.9% vs 35.7%), whereas revascularized IHD patients more frequently died of cardiovascular causes unrelated to IHD (39.1% vs 64.3%; P = .018). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the significance of IHD for postoperative survival of vascular surgery patients. CR was associated with lower IHD-related death rates. However, it failed to provide an overall survival benefit because of an increased rate of cardiovascular mortality unrelated to IHD. Intensification of secondary prevention regimens may be required to prevent this shift toward non-IHD-related death and thereby improve life expectancy.

Randomized comparison of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary revascularization: Rationale and design of the BIOSCIENCE trial.

BACKGROUND: Biodegradable polymers for release of antiproliferative drugs from metallic drug-eluting stents aim to improve long-term vascular healing and efficacy. We designed a large scale clinical trial to compare a novel thin strut, cobalt-chromium drug-eluting stent with silicon carbide-coating releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (O-SES, Orsiro; Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland) with the durable polymer-based Xience Prime/Xpedition everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Xience Prime/Xpedition stent, Abbott Vascular, IL) in an all-comers patient population. DESIGN: The multicenter BIOSCIENCE trial (NCT01443104) randomly assigned 2,119 patients to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or durable polymer EES at 9 sites in Switzerland. Patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, including non-ST-elevation and ST-elevation myocardial infarction, were eligible for the trial if they had at least 1 lesion with a diameter stenosis >50% appropriate for coronary stent implantation. The primary end point target lesion failure (TLF) is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Assuming a TLF rate of 8% at 12 months in both treatment arms and accepting 3.5% as a margin for noninferiority, inclusion of 2,060 patients would provide more than 80% power to detect noninferiority of the biodegradable polymer SES compared with the durable polymer EES at a 1-sided type I error of 0.05. Clinical follow-up will be continued through 5 years. CONCLUSION: The BIOSCIENCE trial will determine whether the biodegradable polymer SES is noninferior to the durable polymer EES with respect to TLF.

Five-Year Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes of a Randomized Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents: Results of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization LATE Trial

Background—Long-term comparative data of first-generation drug-eluting stents are scarce. We investigated clinical and angiographic outcomes of sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) at 5 years as part of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization (SIRTAX) LATE study. Methods and Results—A total of 1012 patients were randomly assigned to SES or PES. Repeat angiography was completed in 444 of 1012 patients (43.8%) at 5 years. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 19.7% of SES- and 21.4% of PES-treated patients (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.17; P=0.39) at 5 years. There were no differences between SES and PES in terms of cardiac death (5.8% versus 5.7%; P=0.35), myocardial infarction (6.6% versus 6.9%; P=0.51), and target lesion revascularization (13.1% versus 15.1%; P=0.29). Between 1 and 5 years, the annual rate of target lesion revascularization was 2.0% (95% confidence interval, 1.4% to 2.6%) for SES and 1.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.9% to 2.0%) for PES. Among patients undergoing paired angiography at 8 months and 5 years, delayed lumen loss amounted to 0.37±0.73 mm for SES and 0.29±0.59 mm for PES (P=0.32). The overall rate of definite stent thrombosis was 4.6% for SES and 4.1% for PES (P=0.74), and very late definite stent thrombosis occurred at an annual rate of 0.65% (95% confidence interval, 0.40% to 0.90%). Conclusions—Long-term follow-up of first-generation drug-eluting stents shows no significant differences in clinical and angiographic outcomes between SES and PES. The continuous increase in late lumen loss in conjunction with the ongoing risk of very late stent thrombosis suggests that vascular healing remains incomplete up to 5 years after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents.

Long-term comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularization

Objectives This study sought to compare the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background It is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between EES and SES during long-term follow-up. Methods Using propensity score matching, clinical outcome was compared among 1,342 propensity score–matched pairs of patients treated with EES and SES. The primary outcome was a composite of death, MI, and target vessel revascularization. Results The median follow-up was 1.5 years with a maximum of 3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 14.9% of EES- and 18.0% of SES-treated patients up to 3 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 1.00, p = 0.056). All-cause mortality (6.0% vs. 6.5%, HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.25, p = 0.59) was similar, risks of myocardial infarction (MI) (3.3% vs. 5.0%, HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.92, p = 0.017), and target vessel revascularization (7.0% vs. 9.6%, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.99, p = 0.039) were lower with EES than SES. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01) was less frequent among patients treated with EES. The reduced rate of MI with EES was explained in part by the lower risk of definite ST and the corresponding decrease in events associated with ST (HR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.75, p = 0.013). Conclusions The unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved clinical long-term outcome compared with SES. Differences in favor of EES are driven in part by a lower risk of MI associated with ST.

Comparison of titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents with zotarolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularization a randomized controlled trial

Objectives This study sought to compare the efficacy of passive stent coating with titanium-nitride-oxide (TiNO) with drug-eluting stents releasing zotarolimus (ZES) (Endeavor, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota). Background Stent coating with TiNO has been shown to reduce restenosis compared with bare-metal stents in experimental and clinical studies. Methods In an assessor-blind noninferiority study, 302 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to treatment with TiNO or ZES. The primary endpoint was in-stent late loss at 6 to 8 months, and analysis was by intention to treat. Results Both groups were well balanced with respect to baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. The TiNO group failed to reach the pre-specified noninferiority margin for the primary endpoint (in-stent late loss: 0.64 ± 0.61 mm vs. 0.47 ± 0.48 mm, difference: 0.16, upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26; pnoninferiority = 0.54), and subsequent superiority testing was in favor of ZES (psuperiority = 0.02). In-segment binary restenosis was lower with ZES (11.1%) than with TiNO (20.5%; psuperiority = 0.04). A stratified analysis of the primary endpoint found particularly pronounced differences between stents among diabetic versus nondiabetic patients (0.90 ± 0.69 mm vs. 0.39 ± 0.38 mm; pinteraction = 0.04). Clinical outcomes showed a similar rate of death (0.7% vs. 0.7%; p = 1.00), myocardial infarction (5.3% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.60), and major adverse cardiac events (21.1% vs. 18.0%, hazard ratio: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.00; p = 0.50) at 1 year. There were no differences in rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.7% vs. 0%; p = 0.51) at 1 year. Conclusions Compared with TiNO, ZES was superior with regard to late loss and binary restenosis. The concept of passive stent coating with TiNO remains inferior to drug-eluting stent technology in reducing restenosis. ([TIDE] Randomized Trial Comparing Titan Stent With Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent: NCT00492908)

SYNTAX score and Clinical SYNTAX score as predictors of very long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: a substudy of SIRolimus-eluting stent compared with pacliTAXel-eluting stent for coronary revascularization (SIRTAX) trial

To investigate the ability of SYNTAX score and Clinical SYNTAX score (CSS) to predict very long-term outcomes in an all-comers population receiving drug-eluting stents.

Percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with formerly "refractory angina pectoris in end-stage coronary artery disease" - not "end-stage" after all

BACKGROUND: Patients with refractory angina pectoris in end-stage coronary artery disease represent a severe condition with a higher reduction of life-expectancy and quality of life as compared to patients with stable coronary artery disease. It was the purpose of this study to invasively re-evaluate highly symptomatic patients with formerly diagnosed refractory angina pectoris in end-stage coronary artery disease for feasible options of myocardial revascularization. METHODS: Thirty-four patients formerly characterized as having end stage coronary artery disease with refractory angina pectoris were retrospectively followed for coronary interventions. RESULTS: Of those 34 patients 21 (61.8%) were eventually revascularized with percutaneous interventional revascularization (PCI). Due to complex coronary morphology (angulation, chronic total occlusion) PCI demanded an above-average amount of time (66 +/- 42 minutes, range 25-206 minutes) and materials (contrast media 247 +/- 209 ml, range 50-750 ml; PCI guiding wires 2.0 +/- 1.4, range 1-6 wires). Of PCI patients 7 (33.3%) showed a new lesion as a sign of progression of atherosclerosis. Clinical success rate with a reduction to angina class II or lower was 71.4% at 30 days. Surgery was performed in a total of8 (23.5%) patients with a clinical success rate of 62.5%. Based on an intention-to-treat 2 patients of originally 8 (25%) demonstrated clinical success. Mortality during follow-up (1-18 months) was 4.8% in patients who underwent PCI, 25% in patients treated surgically and 25% in those only treated medically. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients with end-stage coronary artery disease can be treated effectively with conventional invasive treatment modalities. Therefore even though it is challenging and demanding PCI should be considered as a first choice before experimental interventions are considered.

Randomized comparison of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary revascularization: Rationale and design of the BIOSCIENCE trial

Background Biodegradable polymers for release of antiproliferative drugs from metallic drug-eluting stents (DES) aim to improve long-term vascular healing and efficacy. We designed a large scale clinical trial to compare a novel thin strut, cobalt chromium DES with silicon carbide coating releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (Orsiro, O-SES) with the durable polymer-based Xience Prime everolimus-eluting stent (X-EES) in an all-comers patient population. Design The multicenter BIOSCIENCE trial (NCT01443104) randomly assigned 2,119 patients to treatment with biodegradable polymer SES or durable polymer EES at 9 sites in Switzerland. Patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, including non-ST-elevation and ST-elevation myocardial infarction, were eligible for the trial if they had at least one lesion with a diameter stenosis >50% appropriate for coronary stent implantation. The primary endpoint target lesion failure (TLF) is a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-driven target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Assuming a TLF rate of 8% at 12 months in both treatment arms and accepting 3.5% as a margin for non-inferiority, inclusion of 2,060 patients would provide 80% power to detect non-inferiority of the biodegradable polymer SES compared with the durable polymer EES at a one-sided type I error of 0.05. Clinical follow-up will be continued through five years. Conclusion The BIOSCIENCE trial will determine whether the biodegradable polymer SES is non-inferior to the durable polymer EES with respect to TLF.

Coronary revascularization and TAVI: before, during, after or never?

Aortic valve stenosis and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist in elderly patients selected for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Therapeutic strategies to manage concomitant obstructive CAD are therefore an important consideration in the overall management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. Conventional surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting is the treatment of choice for low and intermediate risk patients with symptomatic severe AS and concomitant obstructive CAD. However, TAVI and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are viable alternative options for high-risk or inoperable patients presenting with symptomatic severe AS. PCI has been shown to be feasible and safe in selected high-risk or inoperable patients with symptomatic severe AS. However, the optimal timing of PCI relative to the TAVI procedure has been a subject of debate. The most frequent approch is staged PCI typically performed a few weeks prior to TAVI. However, concomitant PCI has also been shown to be a feasible and safe approach, particularly in patients with a low level of CAD complexity and an absence of severe renal impairment. Conversely, staged PCI should be considered in patients with higher degrees of CAD complexity, particularly in the presence of severe renal impairment. The aim of the present review is to discuss the safety and feasibility of performing PCI in elderly patients with severe AS and the optimal timing of PCI relative to the TAVI procedure using the most up-to-date available evidence.

Minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation should become the standard practice in coronary revascularization surgery†.

We read with great interest the large-scale network meta-analysis by Kowalewski et al. comparing clinical outcomes of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operated on using minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) or off-pump (OPCAB) with those undergoing surgery on conventional cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) [1]. The authors actually integrated into single study two recently published meta-analysis comparing MiECC and OPCAB with conventional CPB, respectively [2, 3] into a single study. According to the results of this study, MiECC and OPCAB are both strongly associated with improved perioperative outcomes following CABG when compared with CABG performed on conventional CPB. The authors conclude that MiECC may represent an attractive compromise between OPCAB and conventional CPB. After carefully reading the whole manuscript, it becomes evident that the role of MiECC is clearly undervalued. Detailed statistical analysis using the surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities indicated that MiECC represented the safer and more effective intervention regarding all-cause mortality and protection from myocardial infarction, cerebral stroke, postoperative atrial fibrillation and renal dysfunction when compared with OPCAB. Even though no significant statistical differences were demonstrated between MiECC and OPCAB, the superiority of MiECC is obvious by the hierarchy of treatments in the probability analysis, which ranked MiECC as the first treatment followed by OPCAB and conventional CPB. Thus, MiECC does not represent a compromise between OPCAB and conventional CPB, but an attractive dominant technique in CABG surgery. These results are consistent with the largest published meta-analysis by Anastasiadis et al. comparing MiECC versus conventional CPB including a total of 2770 patients. A significant decrease in mortality was observed when MiECC was used, which was also associated with reduced risk of postoperative myocardial infarction and neurological events [4]. Similarly, another recent meta-analysis by Benedetto et al. compared MiECC versus OPCAB and resulted in comparable outcomes between these two surgical techniques [5]. As stated in the text, superiority of MiECC observed in the current network meta-analysis, when compared with OPCAB, could be attributed to the fact that MiECC offers the potential for complete revascularization, whereas OPCAB poses a challenge for unexperienced surgeons; especially when distal marginal branches on the lateral and/or posterior wall of the heart need revascularization. This is reflected by a significantly lower number of distal anastomoses performed in OPCAB when compared with conventional CPB. Therefore, taking into consideration the literature published up to date, including the results of the current article, we advocate that MiECC should be integrated in the clinical practice guidelines as a state-of-the-art technique and become a standard practice for perfusion in coronary revascularization surgery.

Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: 2-Year Results of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.

BACKGROUND No data are available on the long-term performance of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES). We reported 2-year clinical outcomes of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation) trial, which compared BP-SES with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 2119 patients with minimal exclusion criteria were assigned to treatment with BP-SES (n=1063) or DP-EES (n=1056). Follow-up at 2 years was available for 2048 patients (97%). The primary end point was target-lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. At 2 years, target-lesion failure occurred in 107 patients (10.5%) in the BP-SES arm and 107 patients (10.4%) in the DP-EES arm (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.77-1.31, P=0.979). There were no significant differences between BP-SES and DP-EES with respect to cardiac death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.62-1.63, P=0.984), target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60-1.39, P=0.669), target-lesion revascularization (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81-1.71, P=0.403), and definite stent thrombosis (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.56-3.44, P=0.485). There were 2 cases (0.2%) of definite very late stent thrombosis in the BP-SES arm and 4 cases (0.4%) in the DP-EES arm (P=0.423). In the prespecified subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, BP-SES was associated with a lower risk of target-lesion failure compared with DP-EES (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99, P=0.043, Pinteraction=0.026). CONCLUSIONS Comparable safety and efficacy profiles of BP-SES and DP-EES were maintained throughout 2 years of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

Pharmacological treatment and perceived health status during 1-year follow up in patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease, but ineligible for revascularization. Results from the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization

Background It has been recognized that a clinically significant portion of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) continue to experience anginal and other related symptoms that are refractory to the combination of medical therapy and revascularization. The Euro Heart Survey on Revascularization (EHSCR) provided an opportunity to assess pharmacological treatment and outcome in patients with proven CAD who were ineligible for revascularization. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of EHS-CR data. After excluding patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and those in whom revascularization was not indicated, 4409 patients remained in the analyses. We selected two groups: (1) patients in whom revascularization was the preferred treatment option (n = 3777, 86%), and (2) patients who were considered ineligible for revascularization (n = 632, 14%). Results Patient ineligible for revascularization had a worse risk profile, more often had a total occlusion (59% vs. 37%, p < 0.001), were treated more often with ACE-inhibitors (65% vs. 55%, p < 0.001) but less likely with aspirin (83% vs. 88%, p < 0.001). Overall, they had higher case-fatality at 1-year (7.0% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001). Regarding self-perceived health status, measured via the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire, these same patients reported more problems on all dimensions of the EQ-5D. Furthermore, in the revascularization group we observed an increase between discharge and 1-year follow up (utility score from 0.85 to 1.00) whereas patients ineligible for revascularization did not improve over time (utility score remained 0.80) Conclusion In this large cohort of European patients with CAD, those considered ineligible for revascularization had more co-morbidities and risk factors, and scored worse on self-perceived health status as compared to revascularized patients in the revascularization group. With the exception of ACE-inhibitors and aspirin, there were no major differences regarding drug treatment between the two groups. Given these clinically significant observations, there appears to be a role for nurse-led, multidisciplinary, rehabilitation teams that target clinically vulnerable patients whose symptoms remain refractory to standard medical care.

Coronary revascularization can improve regional left ventricular volumes in non-transmural scars without contractile reserve

Revascularization (RVS) of scar segts does not lead to recovery of left ventricular (LV) function, but its effect on post-infarct remodeling is unclear. We examined the impact of RVS on regional remodeling in different transmural extents of scar (TME). Dobutamine echo (DbE) and contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (ce- MRI) were performed in 72 pts post MI (age 63±10, EF 49±12%). Pts were selected for RVS (n = 31) or medical treatment (n = 41). Segts were classified as scar if there were no contractile reserve during lowdose DbE.TMEwas measured by ce-MRI; a cutoff of 75% was used to differentiate transmural (TM) from non-transmural (NT) scars. Regional end systolic (ESV) and end diastolic volumes (EDV) were measured at baseline and 12 months follow up.Of 218 segts identified as scar on DbE, 164wereNTand 54 were TM on ce-MRI. Revascularization was performed to 62 NT and 11 TM segts. In the RVS group, there was reverse remodeling with significant reduction in LV volumes in NT (ESV, 6.8±3.2 ml versus 5.8±3.7 ml, p = 0.002; EDV, 10.9±4.9 ml versus 9.8±5.6 ml, p = 0.02), but no significant change in volumes in TM (ESV, 6.9±3.7 ml versus 5.4±2.1 ml, p = 0.09; EDV, 10.2±4.4 ml versus 9.4±4.3 ml, p = 0.5). In the medically treated group, there were no changes in LV volumes in both NT (ESV, 12.0±11.9 ml versus 12.7±13.8 ml, p = 0.3; EDV, 12.5±7.8 ml versus 12.6±9.7 ml, p = 0.8) and TM (ESV, 8.0±3.8 ml versus 7.9±4.6 ml, p = 0.8; EDV, 10.3±4.8 ml versus 10.4±5.4 ml, p = 0.9). Despite absence of contractile reserve on DbE, NT benefit from coronary revascularization with regional reverse LV remodeling.