Five-year results of the complete versus culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in multivessel disease using drug-eluting stents II (CORRECT II) study: a prospective, randomised controlled trial

A riddle of culprit only vs multivessel or immediate vs staged revascularization in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a revolutionary breakthrough in saving many lives from myocardial infarction. However, little is known about the PCI strategy in multivessel disease (MVD) Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients. Should complete revascularization be achieved or culprit-only is sufficient, then when the appropriate time of multivessel revascularization is, whether it is staged or immediate. Limited evidence is available on this matter compared to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), even though NSTE-ACS patients carry poorer long-term prognoses compared to STEMI.

METHODS

A thorough search for appropriate studies was executed across PubMed, Embase, Medline, Science Direct, and Scopus databases until July 4th, 2023. The risk ratio (RR) underwent analysis through Review Manager 5.4.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies with 222,350 MVD NSTE-ACS patients were included. Culprit-only revascularization was significantly related to a higher risk of non-fatal MI (RR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.04-1.91, p = 0.03, I2: 65%) and all-repeat revascularization (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.07-3.25, p = 0.03). While multistage multivessel revascularization was related to significantly higher all-cause mortality (RR: 1.73; 95% CI 1.43-2.10; p < 0.01; I2: 0%), TVR repeat (RR 1.38 95% CI 1.11-1.73, I2 =  18%, p = 0.004), and non-TVR repeat (RR 2.59; 95% CI 1,56-4.30; p = 0.0002; I2: 70%).

CONCLUSION

Patients with MVD NSTE-ACS treated with multivessel revascularization showed more favorable results than culprit-only. One-stage multivessel revascularization resulted in fewer adverse events than multistage. Additionally, a comprehensive and methodical prospective investigation is required to validate the factors accountable for these outcomes.

Complete revascularization optimizes patient outcomes in multivessel coronary artery disease: Data from the e-Ultimaster registry

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this analysis was to assess the effect of the coronary revascularization strategy during index admission on clinical outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD).

BACKGROUND

The value of complete revascularization (CR) over incomplete revascularization (IR) in MVD patients is not fully established.

METHODS

Patients with MVD defined as ≥2 major epicardial vessels with ≥50% stenosis were selected from the observational all-comer e-Ultimaster registry. Patients were treated with a sirolimus-eluting thin-strut coronary stent. Completeness of revascularization was physician assessed at the index procedure or an eventually staged procedure during the index hospitalization. Outcomes measures at 1 year were target lesion failure (TLF) (composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction [MI], and clinically driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]), and patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) (all-cause mortality, MI, or revascularization). The inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) methodology was used to perform a matched analysis.

RESULTS

The registry recruited 37,198 patients of whom 15,441 (41.5%) had MVD. CR on hospital discharge was achieved in 7413 (48.0%) patients and IR in 8028 (52.0%) patients. Mean age was 64.6 ± 11.1 versus 65.7 ± 11.0 years (p < 0.01), male gender 77.9% and 77.3% (p = 0.41) and diabetes 31.3% versus 33.4% (p = 0.01) for CR and IR, respectively. Chronic stable angina patients more commonly underwent CR (47.6% vs. 36.8%, p < 0.01). After propensity weighted analysis, 90.5% of CR patients were angina-free at 1 year compared with 87.5% of IR patients (p < 0.01). TLF (3.3% vs. 4.4%; p < 0.01), POCE (6.8% vs. 10.8%; p < .01), and all-cause mortality (2.3% vs. 3.1%; p < .01) were all lower in CR patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A physician-directed use of a CR strategy utilizing sirolimus-eluting thin-strut stent results in optimized clinical outcomes and less angina in an all-comer population. Our findings suggest that a CR should be aimed for.

Development and Validation of a Predictive Model for Chronic Kidney Disease After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Chinese

AIM

There is no model for predicting the outcomes for coronary heart disease (CHD) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To develop and validate a model to predict major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with comorbid CKD and CHD undergoing PCI.

METHODS

We enrolled 1714 consecutive CKD patients who underwent PCI from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2017. In the development cohort, we used least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression for data dimension reduction and feature selection. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to develop the prediction model. Finally, we used an independent cohort to validate the model. The performance of the prediction model was evaluated with respect to discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness.

RESULTS

The predictors included a positive family history of CHD, history of revascularization, ST segment changes, anemia, hyponatremia, transradial intervention, the number of diseased vessels, dose of contrast media >200 ml, and coronary collateral circulation. In the validation cohort, the model showed good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.612; 95% confidence interval: 0.560, 0.664) and good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, P  =  0.444). Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the model was clinically useful.

CONCLUSIONS

We created a nomogram that predicts MACEs after PCI in CHD patients with CKD and may help improve the screening and treatment outcomes.

Culprit-only versus multivessel or complete versus incomplete revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention using newer-generation drug-eluting stents

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The long-term comparative results between culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (C-PCI) and multivessel PCI (M-PCI) or those between complete revascularization (CR) and incomplete revascularization (IR) in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) after successful newer-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation are limited. Therefore, we compared the 2-year clinical outcomes in such patients.

METHODS

A total of 4588 patients with NSTEMI and MVD (C-PCI, n = 2055; M-PCI, n = 2533; CR, n = 2029; IR, n = 504) were evaluated. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction MI, and any repeat coronary revascularization. The secondary outcome was stent thrombosis (ST).

RESULTS

The cumulative incidences of the primary and secondary outcomes were similar in the three comparison groups (C-PCI vs. M-PCI, CR vs. IR, or CR vs. C-PCI). However, the cumulative incidence of non-target vessel revascularization (non-TVR) was higher in the C-PCI group than in the M-PCI group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.011; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.942-3.985; p = 0.012), higher in the IR group than in the CR group (aHR: 2.051; 95% CI: 1.216-4.183; p = 0.043), and higher in the C-PCI group than in the CR group (aHR: 2.099; 95% CI: 1.237-3.564; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding the higher cumulative incidence of non-TVR, M-PCI and CR were preferred compared to C-PCI or IR in patients with NSTEMI and MVD. However, further randomized studies are required to confirm these findings.