The prognostic impact of revascularization strategy in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: Insights from the British Columbia Cardiac Registry

Infarct-related artery only revascularization versus multi-vessel revascularization for patients with Killip I-IV acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularization strategy for non-culprit vessels is still up for debate nowadays, particularly when it comes to individuals with different Killip classes. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate whether multivessel revascularization, as compared with infarct-related artery (IRA) alone revascularization, improves long-term prognosis in patients who have experienced an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and have multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data from 646 patients who presented with AMI and multivessel CAD at Beijing Chaoyang hospital between November 2014 and November 2020. Based on various revascularization strategies, patients were categorised into two groups: IRA-only revascularization (n = 416) and multivessel revascularization (n = 230). The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

In the following 60.6 months (60.6 ± 23.9), the primary endpoint occurred in 3% of the multivessel revascularization group versus 9.6% in the IRA-only revascularization group (HR 0.284, CI 0.120-0.669, p = 0.002). For the Killip I-II patients (n = 533), the primary endpoint occurred in 2.6% of the multivessel revascularization group versus 9.5% in the IRA-only revascularization group (HR 0.236, CI 0.083-0.667, p = 0.003). For Killip III-IV patients (n = 113), there was no significance differences in the primary endpoint. After using the inverse probability weighted method, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Multivessel revascularization significantly reduced the incidence of cardiovascular death for patients presenting with AMI and multivessel CAD, particularly for Killip I-II patients. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome across the groups of patients with Killip III-IV.

Multivessel vs. culprit-vessel only percutaneous coronary interventions in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized and retrospective studies

AIMS

Studies comparing outcomes of multivessel (MV) vs. culprit-vessel (CV) only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during index cardiac catheterization in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiogenic shock (CS) have reported conflicting results. In this systematic review we aim to investigate outcomes with MV vs. CV-only revascularization strategies in patients with acute MI and CS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were queried for studies comparing MV vs. CV PCI in patients with acute MI and CS. Data were extracted and pooled by means of random effects model. Primary outcome was early all-cause mortality (up to 30 days), while the secondary outcomes included late all-cause mortality (mean, 11.4 months), stroke, new renal replacement therapy, reinfarction, repeat revascularization, and bleeding. Pooled odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and number needed to harm (NNH) were calculated. A total of 16 studies enrolling 75  431 patients were included. The MV PCI was associated with higher risk of early mortality [OR 1.17, 95% CI (1.00-1.35); P = 0.04; NNH = 62], stroke [1.15 (1.03-1.29); P = 0.01; NNH = 351], and new renal replacement therapy [1.33 (1.06-1.67); P = 0.01; NNH = 61]; and with lower risk of repeat revascularization [0.61 (0.41-0.89); P = 0.01] when compared with CV PCI. No significant difference was observed in late-term mortality [1.02 (0.84-1.25); P = 0.84], risk of reinfarction [1.13 (0.94-1.35); P = 0.18], or bleeding [1.21 (0.94-1.55); P = 0.13] between groups.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with acute MI and CS, MV PCI during index cardiac catheterization was associated with higher risk of early mortality, stroke, and renal replacement therapy.

When to Achieve Complete Revascularization in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition frequently encountered in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Despite prompt revascularization, in particular, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and therapeutic and technological advances, the mortality rate for patients with CS related to AMI remains unacceptably high. Differently form a hemodynamically stable setting, a culprit lesion-only (CLO) revascularization strategy is currently suggested for AMI–CS patients, based on the results of recent randomized evidence burdened by several limitations and conflicting results from non-randomized studies. Furthermore, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have emerged as a key therapeutic option in CS, especially in the case of their early implantation without delaying revascularization and before irreversible organ damage has occurred. We provide an in-depth review of the current evidence on optimal revascularization strategies of multivessel CAD in infarct-related CS, assessing the role of different types of MCS devices and highlighting the importance of shock teams and medical care system networks to effectively impact on clinical outcomes.

Multivessel vs. Culprit Vessel-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicating by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains controversial. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) compared to culprit vessel-only PCI (CO-PCI) for the treatment, only in patients with STEMI with CS.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted. Studies assessed the efficacy outcomes of short (in-hospital or 30 days)/long-term mortality, cardiac death, myocardial reinfarction, repeat revascularization, and safety outcomes of stroke, bleeding, acute renal failure with MV-PCI vs. CO-PCI in patients with STEMI with CS were included. The publication bias and sensitivity analysis were also performed.

Results

A total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in short- and long-term mortality in patients treated with MV-PCI compared to CO-PCI group [odds ratio (OR) = 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92–1.48; OR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58–1.28]. Similarly, there were no significant differences in cardiac death (OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.44–1.00), myocardial reinfarction (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.77–2.00), repeat revascularization (OR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.40–1.42), bleeding (OR = 1.53; 95% CI, 0.53–4.43), or stroke (OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 0.90–2.23) between the two groups. There was a higher risk in acute renal failure (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04–1.69) in patients treated with MV-PCI when compared with CO-PCI.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that there may be no significant benefit for patients with STEMI complicating CS treated with MV-PCI compared with CO-PCI, and patients are at increased risk of developing acute renal failure after MV-PCI intervention.

Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock Interventional Approach to Management in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories

Despite advances in early reperfusion and a technologic renaissance in the space of Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS), Cardiogenic Shock (CS) remains the leading cause of in-hospital mortality following Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI). Given the challenges inherent to conducting adequately powered randomized controlled trials in this time-sensitive, hemodynamically complex, and highly lethal syndrome, treatment recommendations have been derived from AMI patients without shock. In this review, we aimed to (1) examine the pathophysiology and the new classification system for CS; (2) provide a comprehensive, evidence-based review for best practices for interventional management of AMI-CS in the cardiac catheterization laboratory; and (3) highlight the concept of how frailty and geriatric syndromes can be integrated into the decision process and where medical futility lies in the spectrum of AMI-CS care. Management strategies in the cardiac catheterization laboratory for CS include optimal vascular access, periprocedural antithrombotic therapy, culprit lesion versus multi-vessel revascularization, selective utilization of hemodynamic MCS tailored to individual shock hemometabolic profiles, and management of cardiac arrest. Efforts to advance clinical evidence for patients with CS should be concentrated on (1) the coordination of multi-center registries; (2) development of pragmatic clinical trials designed to evaluate innovative therapies; (3) establishment of multidisciplinary care models that will inform quality care and improve clinical outcomes.

Outcomes of Different Reperfusion Strategies of Multivessel Disease Undergoing Newer-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Chronic Kidney Disease

Because available data are limited, we compared the 2-year clinical outcomes among different reperfusion strategies (culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (C-PCI), multivessel PCI (M-PCI), complete revascularization (CR) and incomplete revascularization (IR)) of multivessel disease (MVD) undergoing newer-generation drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). In this nonrandomized, multicenter, retrospective cohort study, a total of 1042 patients (C-PCI, n = 470; M-PCI, n = 572; CR, n = 432; IR, n = 140) were recruited from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR) and evaluated. The primary outcome was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events, defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction and any repeat coronary revascularization. The secondary outcome was probable or definite stent thrombosis. During the 2-year follow-up period, the cumulative incidences of the primary (C-PCI vs. M-PCI, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.020; p = 0.924; CR vs. IR, aHR, 1.012; p = 0.967; C-PCI vs. CR, aHR, 1.042; p = 0.863; or C-PCI vs. IR, aHR, 1.060; p = 0.844) and secondary outcomes were statistically insignificant in the four comparison groups. In the contemporary newer-generation DES era, C-PCI may be a better reperfusion option for patients with NSTEMI with MVD and CKD rather than M-PCI, including CR and IR, with regard to the procedure time and the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy. However, further well-designed, large-scale randomized studies are warranted to confirm these results.

Does multivessel revascularization fit all patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

We sought to assess the relative merits of different revascularization strategies in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock or chronic total occlusion (CTO).

Background

Recent randomized trials and meta-analysis have suggested that multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better outcomes in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, however, patients complicated by cardiogenic shock or CTO were excluded.

Methods

Studies that compared multivessel PCI (immediate or staged) with culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock or CTO were included. Random odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were conducted.

Results

Sixteen studies with 8695 patients complicated by cardiogenic shock and eight studies with 2259 patients complicated by CTO were included. In patients complicated by cardiogenic shock, a strategy of CO-PCI was associated with lower risk for short-term renal failure (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61–0.93; I² = 0.0%), with no significant difference in MACE, all-cause mortality, re-infarction, revascularization, cardiac death, heart failure, major bleeding, or stroke compared with an immediate MV-PCI strategy. In patients complicated by CTO, a strategy of CO-PCI was associated with higher risk for long-term MACE (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.39–3.06; I² = 54.0%), all-cause mortality (OR: 2.89; 95% CI: 2.09–4.00; I² = 0.0%), cardiac death (OR: 3.12; 95% CI: 2.05–4.75; I² = 16.8%), heart failure (OR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.22–3.24; I² = 0.0%), and stroke (OR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.04–7.53; I² = 0.0%) compared with a staged MV-PCI strategy, without any difference in re-infarction, revascularization, or major bleeding.

Conclusions

For patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock, an immediate multivessel PCI was not advocated due to a higher risk for short-term renal failure, whereas for patients complicated by CTO, a staged multivessel PCI was advocated due to reduced risks for long-term MACE, all-cause mortality, cardiac death, heart failure, and stroke.

Comparison of Different Timing of Multivessel Intervention During Index-Hospitalization for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background: Many patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were found to have a multivessel disease. Uncertainty still exists in the optimal revascularization strategy in AMI patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcome of immediate multivessel revascularization compared with staged multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with AMI.

Method: This was a nationwide cohort study of 186,112 patients first diagnosed with AMI, 78,699 of whom received PCI for revascularization. Patients who received repetitive PCI during the index hospitalization were referred to as staged multivessel PCI. Immediate multivessel PCI was defined as patients with two-vessel PCI or three-vessel PCI during the index procedure. Cox proportional hazards regression models were performed to evaluate the different indicators of mortality risks in AMI.

Result: Immediate multivessel PCI was associated with a worse long-term outcome than staged multivessel PCI during the index admission (log-rank P < 0.001). There was a higher incidence of stroke in patients with multivessel PCI during hospitalization. In Cox analysis, immediate multivessel PCI was an independent risk factor for mortality compared to those with staged multivessel PCI, regardless of the type of myocardial infarction.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that performing immediate multivessel PCI for AMI may lead to worse long-term survival than staged multivessel PCI. Our findings emphasized the importance of PCI timing for non-infarct-related artery stenosis and provided information to supplement current evidence.

Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital outcomes and long-term mortality of multivessel versus culprit vessel-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), multivessel disease (MVD) and cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefits of complete revascularization in patients with NSTEMI, MVD, and cardiogenic shock remain uncertain.

METHODS

Among 25,324 patients included in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from July 2009 to March 2018, the rates of in-hospital procedural outcomes were compared between those undergoing multivessel PCI and those undergoing culprit vessel-only PCI after 1:1 propensity score matching. Among patients aged ≥65 years matched to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database, long-term mortality was compared using proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

Multivessel PCI was performed in 9,791 patients (38.7%), which increased from 32.2% in 2010 to 44.2% in 2017 (p for trend <0.001). After 1:1 propensity matching (n = 7,864 in each group), those undergoing multivessel PCI had a 3.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0% to 5.0%) lower absolute rate of in-hospital mortality (30.9% vs. 34.4%; p < 0.001; odds ratio [OR]: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.91), but a higher risk for bleeding (13.2% vs. 10.8%; p < 0.001; OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.40) and new requirement for dialysis (5.7% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.001; OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.46). Among those surviving to discharge, all-cause mortality was similar through 7 years (conditional hazard ratio: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.03; p = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 40% of patients with NSTEMI with MVD and cardiogenic shock underwent multivessel PCI, which was associated with lower in-hospital mortality but greater peri-procedural complications. Among those surviving to discharge, multivessel PCI did not confer additional long-term mortality benefit.

Economic evaluation of culprit lesion only PCI vs. immediate multivessel PCI in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial

BACKGROUND

The CULPRIT-SHOCK trial compared two treatment strategies for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock: (a) culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (CO-PCI), with additional staged revascularisation if indicated, and (b) immediate multivessel PCI (MV-PCI).

METHODS

A German societal and national health service perspective was considered for three different analyses. The cost utility analysis (CUA) estimated costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) based on a pre-trial decision analytic model taking a lifelong time horizon. In addition, a within trial CUA estimated QALYs and costs for 1 year. Finally, the cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) used the composite primary outcome, mortality and renal failure at 30-day follow-up, and the within trial costs. Econometric and survival analysis on the trial data was used for the estimation of the model parameters. Subgroup analysis was performed following an economic protocol.

RESULTS

The lifelong CUA showed an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), CO-PCI vs. MV-PCI, of €7010 per QALY and a probability of CO-PCI being the most cost-effective strategy > 64% at a €30,000 threshold. The ICER for the within trial CUA was €14,600 and the incremental cost per case of death/renal failure avoided at 30-day follow-up was €9010. Cost-effectiveness improved with patient age and for those without diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimates of cost-effectiveness for CO-PCI vs. MV-PCI have been shown to change depending on the time horizon and type of economic evaluation performed. The results favoured a long-term horizon analysis for avoiding underestimation of QALY gains from the CO-PCI arm.

2020 Focused Update of the 2012 Guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology for the Management of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

One of the major missions of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology is to publish practice guidelines that are suitable for local use in Taiwan. The ultimate purpose is to continuously improve cardiovascular health care from the implementation of the recommendations in the guidelines. Despite recent improvement of medical care, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) still carry a high morbidity and mortality. There have been many changes in the concepts of STEMI diagnosis and treatment in recent years. The 2020 focused update of the 2012 guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology for the management of STEMI is an amendment of the 2012 guidelines based on the newest published scientific data. The recommendations in this focused update provide the diagnosis and treatment strategy for STEMI that should be generally implemented in Taiwan. Nevertheless, guidelines never completely replace clinical judgment and medical decision still should be determined individually.

Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Outcome Between Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Infarct-Related Artery-Only Revascularization for Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock

Background

Data are limited regarding long‐term outcomes in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock according to revascularization strategy. We sought to compare the 3‐year clinical outcomes of patients with ST‐segment‐elevation myocardial infarction multivessel disease with cardiogenic shock and patients with multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and infarct‐related artery (IRA)–only PCI.

Methods and Results

Of 13 104 patients from the nationwide, multicenter, prospective KAMIR‐NIH (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry––National Institutes of Health) registry, we selected 659 patients with ST‐segment‐elevation myocardial infarction who had concomitant non‐IRA stenosis and presented with cardiogenic shock. The primary outcome was all‐cause death. Multivessel PCI was performed in 260 patients and IRA‐only PCI in 399 patients. At 3 years, patients in the multivessel PCI group had a lower risk of all‐cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45–0.94 [P=0.024]), all‐cause death or MI (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41–0.84 [P=0.004]), and non‐IRA repeat revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10–0.50 [P<0.001]) than those in the IRA‐only PCI group. The results were consistent after confounder adjustment by propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting analysis. Landmark analysis at 1 year demonstrated that the multivessel PCI group had a lower risk of recurrent MI and non‐IRA repeat revascularization beyond 1 year (log‐rank P=0.030 and P=0.017, respectively) than the IRA‐only PCI group.

Conclusions

In patients with ST‐segment‐elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, multivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk of all‐cause death than IRA‐only PCI at 3 years, suggesting potential benefit of non‐IRA revascularization during the index hospitalization to improve long‐term clinical outcomes.

2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology Guidelines on the Acute Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Focused Update on Regionalization and Reperfusion

Rapid reperfusion of the infarct-related artery is the cornerstone of therapy for the management of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Canada's geography presents unique challenges for timely delivery of reperfusion therapy for STEMI patients. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology STEMI guideline was developed to provide advice regarding the optimal acute management of STEMI patients irrespective of where they are initially identified: in the field, at a non-percutaneous coronary intervention-capable centre or at a percutaneous coronary intervention-capable centre. We had also planned to evaluate and incorporate sex and gender considerations in the development of our recommendations. Unfortunately, inadequate enrollment of women in randomized trials, lack of publication of main outcomes stratified according to sex, and lack of inclusion of gender as a study variable in the available literature limited the feasibility of such an approach. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to develop specific evidence-based recommendations for the early identification of STEMI patients, practical aspects of patient transport, regional reperfusion decision-making, adjunctive prehospital interventions (oxygen, opioids, antiplatelet therapy), and procedural aspects of mechanical reperfusion (access site, thrombectomy, antithrombotic therapy, extent of revascularization). Emphasis is placed on integrating these recommendations as part of an organized regional network of STEMI care and the development of appropriate reperfusion and transportation pathways for any given region. It is anticipated that these guidelines will serve as a practical template to develop systems of care capable of providing optimal treatment for a wide range of STEMI patients.

Design and rationale of the COMPLETE trial: A randomized, comparative effectiveness study of complete versus culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention to treat multivessel coronary artery disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

A significant proportion of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Following successful culprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI, the question of whether to routinely revascularize non-culprit lesions or manage them conservatively with optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone is a common dilemma facing clinicians. METHODS: COMPLETE is a prospective, randomized, international, multicenter, parallel group, open-label trial with blinded evaluation of outcomes. Following successful PCI (contemporary drug eluting stents recommended) of the culprit lesion for STEMI, a total of 4041 patients from 140 centers in 31 countries were randomized to receive either complete revascularization, consisting of staged PCI of all suitable non-culprit lesions plus optimal medical therapy (OMT), or to culprit lesion-only PCI, consisting of OMT alone. OMT comprises evidence-based therapy for STEMI, including and dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, HTN and lipid management. All coronary angiograms in the trial are being evaluated in a central angiographic core lab to assess quality and completeness of revascularization. The co-primary outcomes are (1): the composite of CV death or new non-fatal MI and (2 the composite of CV death, new non-fatal MI or ischemia-driven revascularization at a median follow-up of 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The COMPLETE trial is an international multicenter randomized trial that will help determine whether complete revascularization involving staged PCI of non-culprit lesions improves outcomes in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD. (clinicaltrials.govNCT01740479).