Deferred or immediate stent implantation for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

Mitigating the risk of flow deterioration by deferring stent optimization in STEMI patients with large thrombus burden: Insights from a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

It is uncertain, if omitting post-dilatation and stent oversizing (stent optimization) is safe and may decrease the risk for distal thrombus embolization (DTE) in STEMI patients with large thrombus burden (LTB).

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) with stenting, (DTE) and flow deterioration are common and increase infarct size leading to worse outcomes.

METHODS

From a prospective registry, 74 consecutive STEMI patients with LTB undergoing pPCI with stenting and intentionally deferred stent optimization were analyzed. Imaging data and outcomes up to 2 years follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 74 patients (18% females) underwent deferred stent optimization. Direct stenting was performed in 13 (18%) patients. No major complications occurred during pPCI. Staged stent optimization was performed after a median of 4 (interquartile range (IQR) 3; 7) days. On optical coherence tomography, under-expansion and residual thrombus were present in 59 (80%) and 27 (36%) cases, respectively. During deferred stent optimization, we encountered no case of flow deterioration (slow or no-reflow) or side branch occlusion. Minimal lumen area (mm2) and stent expansion (%) were corrected from 4.87±1.86mm to 6.82±2.36mm (p<0.05) and from 69±18% to 91±12% (p<0.001), respectively. During follow-up, 1 patient (1.4%) required target lesion revascularization and 1 (1.4%) patient succumbed from cardiovascular death.

CONCLUSIONS

Among STEMI patients with LTB, deferring stent optimization in the setting of pPCI appears safe and potentially mitigates the risk of DTE. The impact of this approach on infarct size and clinical outcomes warrants further investigation in a dedicated trial.

Drug Coated Balloon in the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Narrative Review

Drug coated balloons (DCBs) are currently indicated in guidelines as a first choice option in the management of instant restenosis, whereas their use in de novo lesions is still debated. The concerns raised after the contrasting results of the initial trials with DCBs in de novo lesions have been more recently overcome by a larger amount of data confirming their safety and effectiveness as compared to drug-eluting stents (DES), with potentially greater benefits being achieved, especially in particular anatomical settings, as in very small or large vessels and bifurcations, but also in selected subsets of higher-risk patients, where a 'leave nothing behind' strategy could offer a reduction of the inflammatory stimulus and thrombotic risk. The present review aims at providing an overview of current available DCB devices and their indications of use based on the results of data achieved so far.

Fibrinolysis Therapy Combined with Deferred PCI versus Primary Angioplasty for STEMI Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Preliminary Results from a Single Center

Introduction

The efficacy of fibrinolysis therapy with deferred percutaneous coronary angioplasty (FPCI) versus primary angioplasty (PPCI) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unclear when medical quarantine is needed.

Patients and Methods

Acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients underwent PPCI after finishing the screening protocol from January 23, 2020 to June 10, 2020 while FPCI was applied when COVID-19-confirmed cases reoccurred in Beijing near our hospital from June 11, 2020 to July 20, 2020. The door-to-balloon time (DTB) or door-to-needle time (DTN) as well as in-hospital adverse clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. A propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to diminish the potential influence of confounding factors on the clinical outcomes.

Results

A total of 126 STEMI patients underwent PPCI after finishing the screening protocol and 17 patients received FPCI before PSM. Patients who received FPCI were younger than patients who underwent PPCI (50.8±14.0 versus 64.1±14.2 years, p=0.001), and chronic kidney disease (CKD) was less common in FPCI patients than in patients who underwent PPCI (0% versus 24.6%, p=0.024). The DTN was significantly shorter than DTB (25.8±4.2 versus 61.1±10.7, p=0.000) before PSM. The DTN was significantly shorter than DTB (26.9±4.2 versus 64.9±23.6, p=0.000); however, the incidence rate of in-hospital ischemia and bleeding adverse clinical outcomes were comparable between the two groups after PSM.

Conclusion

Fibrinolysis therapy combined with deferred PCI can reduce the ischemia time and has a similar in-hospital adverse clinical outcome rate compared with patients who underwent primary PCI during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Inconsistent results exist regarding the treatment effectiveness of immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of immediate versus deferred PCI in ACS patients. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched from their inception up to August 2019. Random-effects models were employed to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and weight mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited 3350 patients were selected for inclusion in the final meta-analysis. Four trials included patients with non-ST elevation ACS (NSTEACS), whereas the remaining six trials included patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). There were no significant differences between immediate versus deferred PCI for the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.76, 95%CI, 0.33-1.75, P = 0.513; STEMI patients: RR, 1.24, 95%CI, 0.80-1.92, P = 0.335), myocardial infarction (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.88, 95%CI, 0.27-2.81, P = 0.826; STEMI patients: RR, 0.86, 95%CI, 0.43-1.74, P = 0.678), all-cause mortality (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.85, 95%CI, 0.38-1.88, P = 0.686; STEMI patients: RR, 1.16, 95%CI, 0.82-1.66, P = 0.407), target vessel revascularisation (NSTEACS patients: RR, 1.26, 95%CI, 0.29-5.43, P = 0.756; STEMI patients: RR, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.51-1.97, P = 0.988), or major bleeding (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.99, 95%CI, 0.64-1.54, P = 0.972; STEMI patients: RR, 0.90, 95%CI, 0.45-1.77, P = 0.753). Although patients who underwent immediate PCI may experience increased incidences of cardiac death (RR, 1.19, 95%CI, 0.69-2.07, P = 0.525) and no or slow reflow (RR, 1.60, 95%CI, 0.91-2.84, P = 0.105), these increases were not statistically significant. We noted that immediate versus deferred PCI was associated with a reduced incidence of myocardial brush grade 3 (RR, 0.70, 95%CI, 0.56-0.88, P = 0.002); however, no significant differences were observed between immediate and deferred PCI for TIMI III flow (RR, 0.98, 95%CI, 0.93-1.03, P = 0.453), complete ST-segment resolution (RR, 0.93, 95%CI, 0.75-1.17, P = 0.548), and ejection fraction (WMD, -1.05, 95%CI, -2.58 to 0.49, P = 0.182). The findings of this study suggested that deferred PCI did not yield significant benefits for clinical endpoints. Further large-scale RCTs should be conducted to verify the findings of this study.

Deferred vs Immediate Stenting in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Collaborative Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials With Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data

BACKGROUND

The role of deferred vs immediate stenting during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains controversial.

METHODS

We undertook a collaborative meta-analysis of study-level data by searching electronic scientific databases for investigations of primary PCI patients randomized to deferred or immediate stenting and subsequent cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Primary angiographic and imaging outcomes were slow/no-reflow and microvascular obstruction (MVO), respectively. Main secondary outcome was recurrent ischemia.

RESULTS

Among 4 trials, a total of 1570 patients with STEMI were assigned to primary PCI with either deferred (n = 779) or immediate stenting (n = 791). Of these, 797 participants had analyzable cardiac magnetic resonance imaging examinations. Median clinical follow-up was 9 months. Patients treated with deferred stenting showed a lower risk of developing slow/no-reflow in the culprit vessel (risk ratio [RR], 0.54 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.41-0.72]; P < 0.001), a similar risk for MVO (RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.76-1.14]; P = 0.51), and trended higher in the risk of recurrent ischemia (RR, 2.42 [95% CI, 0.88-6.63]; P = 0.09) compared with those treated with immediate stenting. The treatment effect for slow/no-reflow and MVO correlated with a thrombus score grade > 3 at the baseline angiography and with the total stent length implanted in the culprit artery.

CONCLUSIONS

A strategy of deferred stenting during primary PCI improves angiographic but not imaging or clinical outcomes compared with immediate stenting. The potential lower risk for myocardial injury by deferred stenting in primary PCI patients with STEMI and high thrombus burden requires a confirmation in adequately sized randomized trials.

If not now, why are you waiting?

There is some surrogate outcome data supporting deferring PCI in STEMI No hard data to support deferring PCI in STEMI No hard data to refute deferring PCI in STEMI Current national quality measures do not offer a method to adequately document appropriateness of deferring PCI.