Implications of Alternative Definitions of Peri-Procedural Myocardial Infarction After Coronary Revascularization

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is an emerging approach for multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) which combines the excellent long-term outcomes of surgery with the early recovery and reduced short-term complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Here, we evaluated the effectiveness of HCR compared to PCI in patients with MVD.

METHODS

A systematic database search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL/CCTR was conducted by June 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30 days and at latest follow-up between patients undergoing HCR versus PCI.

RESULTS

A total of 27,041 patients (HCR: 939 patients, PCI: 26,102 patients) were included from seven studies published between 2013 and 2021. At latest follow-up, HCR was associated with lower rates of myocardial infarction (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.80, p = 0.010) and target vessel revascularization (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37-0.64, p < 0.001), while the difference for MACCE did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20-1.05, p = 0.061). No differences were observed in terms of 30-day outcomes, nor rates of mortality or stroke at latest follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

HCR might be a valid alternative to multivessel PCI, demonstrating a lower incidence of MI and TVR. Center experience, well-coordinated heart team discussions, and good patient selection likely remain essential to ensure optimal outcomes. Future comparative studies are required to define the optimal target population.

Revascularisation strategies in patients with significant left main coronary disease during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

There are limited data on the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on left main (LM) coronary revascularisation activity, choice of revascularisation strategy, and post‐procedural outcomes.

Methods

All patients with LM disease (≥50% stenosis) undergoing coronary revascularisation in England between January 1, 2017 and August 19, 2020 were included (n = 22,235), stratified by time‐period (pre‐COVID: 01/01/2017–29/2/2020; COVID: 1/3/2020–19/8/2020) and revascularisation strategy (percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Logistic regression models were performed to examine odds ratio (OR) of 1) receipt of CABG (vs. PCI) and 2) in‐hospital and 30‐day postprocedural mortality, in the COVID‐19 period (vs. pre‐COVID).

Results

There was a decline of 1,354 LM revascularisation procedures between March 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020 compared with previous years' (2017–2019) averages (−48.8%). An increased utilization of PCI over CABG was observed in the COVID period (receipt of CABG vs. PCI: OR 0.46 [0.39, 0.53] compared with 2017), consistent across all age groups. No difference in adjusted in‐hospital or 30‐day mortality was observed between pre‐COVID and COVID periods for both PCI (odds ratio (OR): 0.72 [0.51. 1.02] and 0.83 [0.62, 1.11], respectively) and CABG (OR 0.98 [0.45, 2.14] and 1.51 [0.77, 2.98], respectively) groups.

Conclusion

LM revascularisation activity has significantly declined during the COVID period, with a shift towards PCI as the preferred strategy. Postprocedural mortality within each revascularisation group was similar in the pre‐COVID and COVID periods, reflecting maintenance in quality of outcomes during the pandemic. Future measures are required to safely restore LM revascularisation activity to pre‐COVID levels.

Long-Term Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents or Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Multivessel Coronary Disease

More evidence is required with respect to the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in contemporary clinical practice. This prospective observational registry-based study compared the outcomes of 6,647 patients with multivessel disease who underwent PCI with second-generation DES (n = 3,858) or CABG (n = 2,789) between January 2006 and June 2018 and for whom follow-up data were available for at least 2 to 13 years (median 4.8). The primary outcome was a composite of death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, or stroke. Baseline differences were adjusted using propensity scores and inverse probability weighting. In the overall cohort, there were no significant between-group differences in the adjusted risks for the primary composite outcome (hazard ratio [HR] for PCI vs CABG 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86 to 1.25, p = 0.73) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20, p = 0.68). This relative treatment effect on the primary outcome was similar in patients with diabetes (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.46, p = 0.25) and without diabetes (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, p = 0.67) (p for interaction = 0.24). The adjusted risk of the primary outcome was significantly greater after PCI than after CABG in patients with left main involvement (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.90, p = 0.044), but not in those without left main involvement (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.16, p = 0.56) (p = 0.03 for interaction). In this prospective real-world long-term registry, we observed that the risk for the primary composite of death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, or stroke was similar between PCI with contemporary DES and CABG.

Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Diabetics: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting?

The choice between coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for myocardial revascularization in patients with left main disease (LMD) is controversial. There is general agreement that CABG is appropriate for all patients, and PCI is acceptable for those with low-to-intermediate anatomic complexity. However, there is uncertainty about the relative safety and efficacy of PCI in patients with more complex LMD and with comorbidities such as diabetes. No direct comparison trial has focused on revascularization in diabetic patients with LMD, and thus conclusions on the topic are subject to the limitations of subgroup analysis, as well as the heterogeneous exclusion criteria, and methodologies of individual trials. The available evidence suggests that among diabetics, CABG is superior in patients with LMD with SYNTAX (SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and dardiac surgery) score greater than 33, distal bifurcation disease, or multivessel disease. PCI may be appropriate in those with less-extensive disease or those with limited life expectancy or high surgical risk.

Towards an improved definition of periprocedural myocardial infarction: The role of high-sensitivity cardiac troponins

In the past few years, many have disputed the optimal biomarker for confirming or ruling out a diagnosis of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) and the optimal cut‐off concentrations to apply. In this issue of the Journal of Cardiac Surgery, Niclauss et al. performed a retrospective analysis of CK‐MB and high‐sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs‐cTnT) dynamics and peak concentrations following different cardiac surgical interventions in 400 patients during a 2‐year period in a single center. The authors found that CK‐MB and hs‐cTnT predict PMI with a comparable diagnostic accuracy and discriminatory power >95%. They also attempted to propose an improved, more sensitive threshold of hs‐cTnT for PMI. Their findings could have implications for clinical practice, but more research is warranted to identify more appropriate cut‐offs. This could include hs‐cTnT release pattern, slope steepness, and changes. Ultimately, this could results in patient‐specific model, able to predict expected and abnormal ranges of hs‐cTnT release, enabling an improved and timely diagnosis of PMI.

Association of peri-procedural myocardial infarction with mortality after stenting true coronary bifurcation lesions: A pooled individual participant data analysis from four randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Five definitions of peri-procedural myocardial infarction (PMI) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are used in clinical trials; their clinical relevance in coronary bifurcation stenting remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To understand the correlation between PMI and mortality in bifurcation lesions from the DKCRUSH studies.

METHODS

PMI was defined using serum creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB) values within 48 h of PCI according to the SYNTAX, Fourth Universal Definition of MI (4th UDMI), ISCHEMIA, SCAI, and EXCEL definitions. Overall, 1300 patients with both CK and CK-MB measurements pre- and post-stenting were evaluated. The association of each PMI type and all-cause death or cardiac death at a median of 5.58 years of follow-up was analyzed using Cox regression.

RESULTS

In total, 56 (4.3%) patients had PMI. According to SYNTAX, 4th UDMI or ISCHEMIA, SCAI, and EXCEL definitions, PMI occurred in 21 (1.6%), 56 (4.3%), 29 (2.2%), and 32 (2.5%) patients, respectively. All definitions were significantly correlated with unadjusted mortality at the end of follow-up but not at 30 days or 1-year after stenting. PMI using SYNTAX, SCAI, and EXCEL definitions rather than 4th UDMI definition was strongly associated with adjusted all-cause death. By adjusted analysis, PMI according to 4th UDMI, SCAI, and EXCEL definitions but not SYNTAX definition was positively correlated with cardiac death at a median of 5.58 years of follow-up. CK-MB ≥ 5 x UNL strongly enhanced the correlation of CK-MB values with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

PMI rate varies with the definition following stenting for bifurcation lesions. PMI defined by SCAI and EXCEL definitions is strongly correlates with adjusted all-cause and cardiac death.

Prognostically relevant periprocedural myocardial injury and infarction associated with percutaneous coronary interventions: a Consensus Document of the ESC Working Group on Cellular Biology of the Heart and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

A substantial number of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) experience periprocedural myocardial injury or infarction. Accurate diagnosis of these PCI-related complications is required to guide further management given that their occurrence may be associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Due to lack of scientific data, the cut-off thresholds of post-PCI cardiac troponin (cTn) elevation used for defining periprocedural myocardial injury and infarction, have been selected based on expert consensus opinions, and their prognostic relevance remains unclear. In this Consensus Document from the ESC Working Group on Cellular Biology of the Heart and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), we recommend, whenever possible, the measurement of baseline (pre-PCI) cTn and post-PCI cTn values in all CCS patients undergoing PCI. We confirm the prognostic relevance of the post-PCI cTn elevation >5× 99th percentile URL threshold used to define type 4a myocardial infarction (MI). In the absence of periprocedural angiographic flow-limiting complications or electrocardiogram (ECG) and imaging evidence of new myocardial ischaemia, we propose the same post-PCI cTn cut-off threshold (>5× 99th percentile URL) be used to define prognostically relevant ‘major’ periprocedural myocardial injury. As both type 4a MI and major periprocedural myocardial injury are strong independent predictors of all-cause mortality at 1 year post-PCI, they may be used as quality metrics and surrogate endpoints for clinical trials. Further research is needed to evaluate treatment strategies for reducing the risk of major periprocedural myocardial injury, type 4a MI, and MACE in CCS patients undergoing PCI.

Sex differences in outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting: a pooled analysis of individual patient data

AIMS

Data suggest that women have worse outcomes than men after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), but results have been inconsistent across studies. Due to the large differences in baseline characteristics between sexes, suboptimal risk adjustment due to low-quality data may be the reason for the observed differences. To overcome this limitation, we undertook a systematic review and pooled analysis of high-quality individual patient data from large CABG trials to compare the adjusted outcomes of women and men.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, MACCE). The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Multivariable mixed-effect Cox regression was used. Four trials involving 13 193 patients (10 479 males; 2714 females) were included. Over 5 years of follow-up, women had a significantly higher risk of MACCE [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.21; P = 0.004] but similar mortality (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.14; P = 0.51) compared to men. Women had higher incidence of MI (adjusted HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11-1.52) and repeat revascularization (adjusted HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04-1.43) but not stroke (adjusted HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.90-1.52). The difference in MACCE between sexes was not significant in patients 75 years and older. The use of off-pump surgery and multiple arterial grafting did not modify the difference between sexes.

CONCLUSIONS

Women have worse outcomes than men in the first 5 years after CABG. This difference is not significant in patients aged over 75 years and is not affected by the surgical technique.

Implications of Periprocedural Myocardial Biomarker Elevations and Commonly Used MI Definitions After Left Main PCI

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to: 1) assess the relationship of different thresholds of creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB) and cardiac troponin with subsequent mortality; and 2) evaluate the prognostic significance of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) according to various definitions of myocardial infarction in patients with left main (LM) coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND

The magnitude of postprocedural biomarker elevation representing a clinically meaningful PMI after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is controversial.

METHODS

A total of 4,013 consecutive patients undergoing LM PCI at a single center from January 2004 to December 2016 were enrolled. CK-MB and cardiac troponin I (cTnI) were routinely collected at baseline and at frequent intervals between 8 and 48 hours after PCI. The primary and secondary outcomes were the covariate-adjusted 3-year rates of cardiovascular (CV) and all-cause mortality, respectively.

RESULTS

The 3-year rate of CV mortality progressively increased with higher peak CK-MB values. CV mortality was first independently predicted by postprocedural CK-MB 3 to 5 times the upper reference limit (URL) (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-8.40), whereas all-cause death was independently predicted only by CK-MB ≥ 10 × URL (aHR: 3.25; 95% CI: 1.37-7.70). In contrast, no level of peak postprocedural cTnI was associated with CV or all-cause death. PMI by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), Academic Research Consortium-2 (ARC-2), and fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (UDMI) occurred in 1.3%, 3.1%, and 5.1% of patients, respectively. The SCAI definition was significantly associated with 3-year CV mortality (aHR: 4.93; 95% CI: 1.92-12.69) and all-cause mortality (aHR: 3.11; 95% CI: 1.33-7.27), whereas the ARC-2 and fourth UDMI definitions were not.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large cohort of consecutive patients undergoing LM PCI, intermediate (≥3 × URL) and high (≥10 × URL) levels of peak postprocedural CK-MB independently predicted 3-year CV and all-cause mortality, respectively, whereas even large elevations of post-PCI cTnI did not. The SCAI definition (but not the ARC-2 or fourth UDMI) of PMI was independently associated with mortality after LM PCI.

Cardiac Surgery 2020 Reviewed

In 2020, nearly 30,000 published references appeared in the PubMed for the search term "cardiac surgery." While SARS-CoV-2 affected the number of surgical procedures, it did not affect outcomes reporting. Using the PRISMA approach, we selected relevant publications and prepared a results-oriented summary. We reviewed primarily the fields of coronary and conventional valve surgery and their overlap with interventional alternatives. The coronary field started with a discussion on trial data value and their interpretation. Registry comparisons of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention confirmed outcomes for severe coronary artery disease and advanced comorbidities with CABG. Multiple arterial grafting was best. In aortic valve surgery, meta-analyses of randomized trials report that transcatheter aortic valve implantation may provide a short-term advantage but long-term survival may be better with classic aortic valve replacement (AVR). Minimally invasive AVR and decellularized homografts emerged as hopeful techniques. In mitral and tricuspid valve surgery, excellent perioperative and long-term outcomes were presented for structural mitral regurgitation. For both, coronary and valve surgery, outcomes are strongly dependent on surgeon expertise. Kidney disease increases perioperative risk, but does not limit the surgical treatment effect. Finally, a cursory look is thrown on aortic, transplant, and assist-device surgery with a glimpse into the current stand of xenotransplantation. As in recent years, this article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It does not expect to be complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. We aimed to provide up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.

2021 Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes for the Perioperative Clinician

In this review, recent key publications related to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are summarized and placed into context of contemporary practice. Landmark trials examining vascular access in ST-elevation myocardial infarction, the management of multivessel disease, acute myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest are discussed. An update in pharmacology for ACS provides updates in major trials relating to P2Y12 inhibitor initiation, deescalation, and use in special populations. Additional updates in the use of lipid-lowering agents and adjunctive medications in ACS are reviewed. Finally, cardiac pathology related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as well as the impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic on the care of patients with ACS, is summarized.

Cangrelor: Clinical Data, Contemporary Use, and Future Perspectives

Cangrelor is the only currently available intravenous platelet P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor. It is characterized by potent, predictable, and rapidly reversible antiplatelet effects. Cangrelor has been tested in the large CHAMPION (Cangrelor Versus Standard Therapy to Achieve Optimal Management of Platelet Inhibition) program, where it was compared with different clopidogrel regimens, and it is currently indicated for use in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the uptake of cangrelor use varies across the globe and may also include patients with profiles different from those enrolled in the registration trials. These observations underscore the need to fully examine the safety and efficacy of cangrelor in postregistration studies. There are several ongoing and planned studies evaluating the use of cangrelor in real‐world practice which will provide important insights to this extent. The current article provides a review on the pharmacology, clinical studies, contemporary use of cangrelor in real‐world practice, a description of ongoing studies, and futuristic insights on potential strategies on how to improve outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: JACC Historical Breakthroughs in Perspective

Over the last 4 decades, percutaneous coronary intervention has evolved dramatically and is now an acceptable treatment option for patients with advanced coronary artery disease. However, trialists have struggled to establish the respective roles for percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, especially in patients with multivessel disease and unprotected left-main stem coronary artery disease. Several pivotal trials and meta-analyses comparing these 2 revascularization strategies have enabled the relative merits of each technique to be established with regard to the type of ischemic syndrome, the coronary anatomy, and the patient's overall comorbidity. Precision medicine with individualized prognosis is emerging as an important method of selecting treatment. However, the never-ending advancement of technology, in conjunction with the emergence of novel pharmacological agents, will in the future continue to force us to reconsider the evolving question: "Which treatment strategy is better and for which patient?"

Inflammation during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Prognostic Value, Mechanisms and Therapeutic Targets

Periprocedural myocardial injury and myocardial infarction (MI) are not infrequent complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are associated with greater short- and long-term mortality. There is an abundance of preclinical and observational data demonstrating that high levels of pre-, intra- and post-procedural inflammation are associated with a higher incidence of periprocedural myonecrosis as well as future ischaemic events, heart failure hospitalisations and cardiac-related mortality. Beyond inflammation associated with the underlying coronary pathology, PCI itself elicits an acute inflammatory response. PCI-induced inflammation is driven by a combination of direct endothelial damage, liberation of intra-plaque proinflammatory debris and reperfusion injury. Therefore, anti-inflammatory medications, such as colchicine, may provide a novel means of improving PCI outcomes in both the short- and long-term. This review summarises periprocedural MI epidemiology and pathophysiology, evaluates the prognostic value of pre-, intra- and post-procedural inflammation, dissects the mechanisms involved in the acute inflammatory response to PCI and discusses the potential for periprocedural anti-inflammatory treatment.

Peri-procedural myocardial infarction: what is in a definition?

Peri-procedural myocardial infarction (PMI) is an important outcome measure in several trials. However, there is no consensus regarding the definition of PMI. There is significant variability in terms of biomarkers used, the threshold values, the requirement for additional supporting evidence, and even the duration until which PMI can be said to occur. This lack of clarity leads to inappropriate comparisons between trials. Besides, the outcome of a trial and the inferences drawn are completely altered by using a different definition. Thus, there is a pressing need to formulate a uniform definition for PMI in future studies.

Clinical Implications of the ISCHEMIA Trial: Invasive vs Conservative Approach in Stable Coronary Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To identify key strengths and weaknesses of the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial and explore its clinical implications in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Previous studies have shown inconsistent benefit of early angiography and revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. The ISCHEMIA trial showed no significant reduction in mortality or cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing early angiography and revascularization with guideline-directed medical therapy compared to patients on medical therapy alone in specific patient population with stable coronary artery disease. The ISCHEMIA trial provides insights into invasive versus pharmacological treatment for patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Though it may have reduced applicability given its broad exclusion criteria, it offers useful information about the utility of non-invasive imaging modalities for selecting optimal revascularization candidates.

Myocardial Infarction in the ISCHEMIA Trial: Impact of Different Definitions on Incidence, Prognosis, and Treatment Comparisons

BACKGROUND

In the ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy did not significantly reduce rates of cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality in comparison with a conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate/severe myocardial ischemia. The most frequent component of composite cardiovascular end points was myocardial infarction (MI).

METHODS

ISCHEMIA prespecified that the primary and major secondary composite end points of the trial be analyzed using 2 MI definitions. For procedural MI, the primary MI definition used creatine kinase-MB as the preferred biomarker, whereas the secondary definition used cardiac troponin. Procedural thresholds were >5 times the upper reference level for percutaneous coronary intervention and >10 times for coronary artery bypass grafting. Procedural MI definitions included (1) a category of elevated biomarker only events with much higher biomarker thresholds, (2) new ST-segment depression of ≥1 mm for the primary and ≥0.5 mm for the secondary definition, and (3) new coronary dissections >National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grade 3. We compared MI type, frequency, and prognosis by treatment assignment using both MI definitions.

RESULTS

Procedural MIs accounted for 20.1% of all MI events with the primary definition and 40.6% of all MI events with the secondary definition. Four-year MI rates in patients undergoing revascularization were more frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (2.7% versus 1.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.98 [95% CI, 1.87-4.73]) and secondary (8.2% versus 2.0%; adjusted HR, 5.04 [95% CI, 3.64-6.97]) MI definitions. Type 1 MIs were less frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (3.40% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) and secondary (3.48% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) definitions. The risk of subsequent cardiovascular death was higher after a type 1 MI than after no MI using the primary (adjusted HR, 3.38 [95% CI, 2.03-5.61]; P<0.001) or secondary MI definition (adjusted HR, 3.52 [2.11-5.88]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In ISCHEMIA, type 1 MI events using the primary and secondary definitions during 5-year follow-up were more frequent with an initial conservative strategy and associated with subsequent cardiovascular death. Procedural MI rates were greater in the invasive strategy and with the use of the secondary MI definition. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.