Immediate versus delayed angioplasty in infarct-related arteries with TIMI III flow and ST segment recovery: a matched comparison in acute myocardial infarction patients

A comprehensive guide on the optimal timing of PCI in the setting of acute coronary syndrome: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Invasive revascularization is recommended for cohorts of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). However, the optimal timing of invasive revascularization is still controversial and no defined consensus is established. We aim to give a comprehensive appraisal on the optimal timing of invasive strategy in the heterogenous population of ACS.

METHODS

Relevant studies were assessed through PubMed, Scopus, Web of science, and Cochrane Library from inception until April 2023. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality were our primary outcomes of interest, other secondary outcomes were cardiac death, TVR, MI, repeat revascularization, recurrent ischemia, and major bleeding. The data was pooled as odds ratio (OR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random effect model using STATA 17 MP.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies comprising 21,443 patients were included in the analysis. Early intervention was favor to decrease all-cause mortality (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.98, p = 0.03), when compared to delayed intervention. Subgroup analysis showed that early intervention was significantly associated with all-cause mortality reduction in only NSTE-ACS (OR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.7 to 0.99], p = 0.04). However, there was no significant difference between early and delayed intervention in terms of MACE, cardiac death, TVR, MI, repeat revascularization, recurrent ischemia, and major bleeding.

CONCLUSION

An early intervention was associated with lower mortality rates compared to delayed intervention in NSTE-ACS with no significant difference in other clinical outcomes. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023415574.

Spontaneous Reperfusion in Patients with Transient ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction-Prevalence, Importance and Approaches to Management

Patients with transient ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or spontaneous resolution (SpR) of the ST-segment elevation on electrocardiogram could potentially represent a unique group of patients posing a therapeutic management dilemma. In this review, we discuss the potential mechanisms underlying SpR, its relation to clinical outcomes and the proposed management options for patients with transient STEMI with a focus on immediate versus early percutaneous coronary intervention. We performed a structured literature search of PubMed and Cochrane Library databases from inception to December 2020. Studies focused on SpR in patients with acute coronary syndrome were selected. Available data suggest that deferral of angiography and revascularization within 24-48 h in these patients is reasonable and associated with similar or perhaps better outcomes than immediate angiography. Further randomized trials are needed to elucidate the best pharmacological and invasive strategies for this cohort.

Advances in the treatment of ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction in the UK

The treatment of acute coronary occlusion with Primary PCI has been a major factor in improving outcomes of patients suffering STEMI in the last 15 years, and is the standard treatment for patients suffering STEMI in the UK. Treatment is beneficial for patients presenting within 12 hours of the onset of symptoms, with the goal being opening of the occluded artery within 150 min of the call for help. Opening of the occluded artery is typically completed with a drug-eluting stent followed by administration of antiplatelet medications for 12 months. Procedures are performed using the radial artery which is associated with improved outcomes compared to vascular access via the femoral artery. Evidence is growing to support full revascularisation including the treatment of severe narrowing in other blood vessels as well as the culprit vessel.

[Our enemy : the clot. Coronary thrombosis : strategy and therapeutic arsenal]

Intra coronary thrombus is  frequently encountered during acute coronary syndromes revascularisation procedures. It can also be encountered during angioplasty procedures in a stable angina context, although at a much lesser frequency.In both situations, it harbors a risk of poor angiographic result and poor prognosis. Intracoronnary thrombus may cause coronary occlusion at the angioplasty site or distal embolic  flow obstruction. Per procedure thrombus prevention rests on an prior optimal anti thrombotic treatment and in some circumstances the choice to defer the revascularisation procedure in the complex high risk setting. Treating the initiated thrombus remains controversial concerning thrombectomy and GPIIBIIIa inhibitors which are still in use in common practice. No reflow phenomenon is a particularly complex setting during cornary angioplasties, partially but not solely related to a thrombotic complication. It's treatment remains unclear in the absence of related oriented studies.The current mechanical and pharmacological antithrombotic therapies must remain common practice and used appropriately as of the clinical and angiographic setting, until further scientific outbrakes.

Stenting deferral in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: exploring benefits and suitable interval in heavy thrombus burden

BACKGROUND

Deferred stenting, despite being successful in early studies, showed no benefit in recent trials. However, these trials were testing routine deferral; not in patients with heavy thrombus burden.

RESULTS

This is a prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial that included 150 patients who presented with STEMI, patients were allocated into three equal groups after the coronary angiography ± primary intervention and before stenting of the culprit lesion; group (A) included 50 patients with early deferral of stenting, group (B) included 50 patients with late deferral and group (C) included 50 patients with immediate stenting. No-reflow was significantly higher in group C, while Final TIMI flow grade 3 and MBG grade 3 were significantly higher in group A and B than group C; p = 0.019 and < 0.001 respectively, with no significant difference between groups A and B, only the thrombus resolution in group B was significantly higher than group A; p < 0.001. Finally, 6-months, over-all MACE was significantly higher in group C (34.7% vs. 14.6% and 16.3%, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Stent deferral was proved to be better than immediate stenting after recanalization of IRA, in achieving TIMI III flow, reducing risk of 6 months MACE, and restoration of myocardial function in a subset of STEMI patients presenting with large thrombus burden. While, no significant difference was found between both deferral times in final TIMI flow, or clinical outcomes.

Deferred Stenting for Heavy Thrombus Burden During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Elevation MI

Patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) usually have a huge thrombus burden in the infarct-related artery. Stenting may lead to high chances of the slow-flow/no-reflow phenomenon that leads to periprocedural MI and adverse cardiovascular events. Deferred stenting may be beneficial in this situation as the thrombus burden will reduce, mitigating the slow-flow/no-reflow phenomenon. However, routine deferral of stenting in patients with STEMI has not been found to be beneficial, but when the patient is properly selected, deferred stenting has the potential for reducing the final infarct size. The authors report the safety and feasibility of deferred stenting after 5 days of prolonged anticoagulation in a 45-year-old smoker with STEMI who had a large thrombus load shown on an angiogram. They review the registries, trials and meta-analyses on deferred stenting in the literature and analyse the benefits and harms of the strategy. They also propose an algorithm for applying a strategy for deferred stenting in clinical practice based on the available data.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is appropriate in transient ST-elevation myocardial infarction

INTRODUCTION

Reperfusion therapy by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is generally indicated in patients suffering from acute myocardial infarction (MI) with ST-segment elevation (STEMI). Prior to hospital admission, full ST-segment resolution (fSTR) may occur. Optimal management of such patients with transient STEMI (TSTEMI) is potentially challenging. Our aim was to evaluate the hypothesis that in TSTEMI patients, patency of infarct related artery (IRA) is achieved before PPCI, and to compare the outcome of TSTEMI and STEMI patients during a prolonged follow-up.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three hundred consecutive adult STEMI patients were referred to catheterization laboratory. In all patients, standard 12 lead ECGs were obtained both at the time of the first medical contact, and on catheterization laboratory admission.

RESULTS

TSTEMI occurred in 20 patients (6.7%). Despite fSTR (isoelectric ST segment), occluded IRA was found in 5 of these patients (25%). Pre-PPCI TIMI flow grade 2 was found in 6 TSTEMI patients (30%). Troponin T value at 24 h after symptom onset was lower in the TSTEMI group (1.8±2.5 mg/L vs. 3.6±3.5 mg/L, P=0.008). These patients also had a lower value of brain natriuretic peptide (156.3±119.5 ng/L vs. 438.5±429.0 ng/L, P<0.001) and higher left ventricular ejection fraction (59.9±6.3% vs. 51.6±10.2%, P<0.001). All patients were followed for a median of 5.6 years during which the overall survival did not differ between the TSTEMI and STEMI groups.

CONCLUSION

Primary PCI is strongly recommended in TSTEMI patients because of a relatively high incidence of occluded infarct related arteries. The rate of patients with TSTEMI is relatively low.

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.

Optimal Timing for Coronary Intervention in Patients With Transient ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

STEMI patients admitted urgently to the hospital but experience early complete resolution of both ischemic symptoms and ST-elevations on the electrocardiogram are diagnosed as transient STEMI (TSTEMI). Current evidence indicates that primary intervention is plausible but in certain circumstances intervention can be delayed. We sought to examine whether there is a time limit to such a delay that may affect long-term outcome. Study population included prospectively admitted TSTEMI patients whose demographics, pertinent medical history, and clinical and angiographic features were recorded. Study patients were divided by the median time interval from admission to intervention and their characteristics and long-term survival were compared. Study population comprised 260 consecutive patients (age: 57±10 years, men: 84%) diagnosed as TSTEMI who were included from January 2000 to June 2019, which represent 6% of all STEMI patients. Coronary angiography was performed in 254 patients. The median time interval from admission to angiography was 17 hours (IQR: 7.2 to 38.7 hours). Early (<17 hours from admission) and late (>17 hours from admission) study groups were comparable. One patient died during admission and 41 throughout the long follow-up period of 8.5 ± 5.2 years (median: 8.2 years, IQR: 3.4 to 13.1). Mortality of early-treated TSTEMI patients (11.2%) was significantly lower than of the late-treated patients (21.6%, p <0.04). The Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrated a clear tendency toward improved survival in early-treated TSTEMI patients (p <0.09). In conclusion, the present data suggest that TSTEMI patients should be treated, if not by primary coronary intervention, then at least within 17 hours from admission to achieve better long-term outcome.