Influence of coronary collateral flow on restenosis following primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction

Pathophysiology of coronary collaterals

While the existence of structural adaptation of coronary anastomoses is undisputed, the potential of coronary collaterals to be capable of functional adaptation has been questioned. For many years, collateral vessels were thought to be rigid tubes allowing only limited blood flow governed by the pressure gradient across them. This concept was consistent with the notion that although collaterals could provide adequate blood flow to maintain resting levels, they would be unable to increase blood flow sufficiently in situations of increased myocardial oxygen demand.

However, more recent studies have demonstrated the capability of the collateral circulation to deliver sufficient blood flow even during exertion or pharmacologic stress. Moreover, it has been shown that increases in collateral flow could be attributed directly to collateral vasomotion.

This review summarizes the pathophysiology of the coronary collateral circulation, ie the functional adapation of coronary collaterals to acute alterations in the coronary circulation.

Coronary collaterals and risk for restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefit of the coronary collateral circulation (natural bypass network) on survival is well established. However, data derived from smaller studies indicates that coronary collaterals may increase the risk for restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was to explore the impact of the collateral circulation on the risk for restenosis.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science databases (2001 to 15 July 2011). Random effects models were used to calculate summary risk ratios (RR) for restenosis. The primary endpoint was angiographic restenosis > 50%.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies enrolling 1,425 subjects were integrated in this analysis. On average across studies, the presence of a good collateralization was predictive for restenosis (risk ratio (RR) 1.40 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.80); P = 0.009). This risk ratio was consistent in the subgroup analyses where collateralization was assessed with intracoronary pressure measurements (RR 1.37 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.83); P = 0.038) versus visual assessment (RR 1.41 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.99); P = 0.049). For the subgroup of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), the RR for restenosis with 'good collaterals' was 1.64 (95% CI 1.14 to 2.35) compared to 'poor collaterals' (P = 0.008). For patients with acute myocardial infarction, however, the RR for restenosis with 'good collateralization' was only 1.23 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.69); P = 0.212.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increased in patients with good coronary collateralization. Assessment of the coronary collateral circulation before PCI may be useful for risk stratification and for the choice of antiproliferative measures (drug-eluting stent instead bare-metal stent, cilostazol).

Does a well developed collateral circulation predispose to restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention? An intravascular ultrasound study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a well developed collateral circulation predisposes to restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

PATIENTS AND SETTING

58 patients undergoing elective single vessel PCI in a tertiary referral interventional cardiac unit in the UK.

METHODS

Collateral flow index (CFI) was calculated as (Pw-Pv)/(Pa-Pv), where Pa, Pw, and Pv are aortic, coronary wedge, and right atrial pressures during maximum hyperaemia. Collateral supply was considered poor (CFI < 0.25) or good (CFI > or = 0.25).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

In-stent restenosis six months after PCI, classified as neointimal volume > or = 25% stent volume on intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), or minimum lumen area < or = 50% stent area on IVUS, or minimum lumen diameter < or = 50% reference vessel diameter on quantitative coronary angiography.

RESULTS

Patients with good collaterals had more severe coronary stenoses at baseline (90 (11)% v 75 (16)%, p < 0.001). Restenosis rates were similar in poor and good collateral groups (35% v 43%, p = 0.76 for diameter restenosis, 27% v 45%, p = 0.34 for area restenosis, and 23% v 24%, p = 0.84 for volumetric restenosis). CFI was not correlated with diameter, area, or volumetric restenosis (r2 < 0.1 for each). By multivariate analysis, stent diameter, stent length, > 10% residual stenosis, and smoking history were predictive of restenosis.

CONCLUSION

A well developed collateral circulation does not predict an increased risk of restenosis after PCI.

Impact of coronary collaterals on outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention (from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry)

Coronary collateral circulation is beneficial in patients with coronary artery disease, but controversy still exists regarding the association between angiographic collaterals and outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared the baseline characteristics and cumulative 1-year event rates of consecutive patients undergoing PCI by target vessel collateral status-no angiographic evidence of collateral circulation (NC; n = 5051), treated artery supplied collaterals (SC; n = 239), and treated artery received collaterals (RC; n = 893)-using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry. Patients in the SC group were older and had more previous coronary bypass surgery, myocardial infarction, co-morbid illness, and heart failure than the NC and RC groups and had less often undergone revascularization for acute myocardial infarction (p <0.01 for all). The total angiographic PCI success was comparable for the SC and NC groups but higher than for the RC group (94.1% vs 94.4% vs 83.9%, respectively; p <0.001). Overall stent use was 77.5% and was highest in the SC group (82.4%, p <0.001). At 1 year, significant differences in outcome were observed by collateral status. Compared with the NC group, patients with PCI of a SC artery had higher adjusted mortality (relative risk [RR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27 to 3.01, p = 0.002) and death/myocardial infarction (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.45, p <0.001) rates. Patients with PCI of a RC vessel, conversely, had lower adjusted death/myocardial infarction (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96, p = 0.02) and repeat revascularization (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.91, p = 0.005) rates. In conclusion, our results suggest that PCI on collateralized vessels is warranted, but that patients with PCI in arteries that supply collaterals are a high-risk group that may benefit from closer follow-up and complete revascularization.