Meta-analysis of multivessel versus culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease

Multivessel versus Culprit-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background: There is uncertainty whether multivessel (MV-PCI) or culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (CO-PCI) should be the treatment of choice in patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). Aims: To evaluate clinical characteristics and outcomes in these patients undergoing MV-PCI or CO-PCI at the index procedure. Methods: Data were retrieved from the nationwide Netherlands Heart Registration. All NSTE-ACS patients with MVD undergoing PCI between 1 January 2017 and 1 October 2019 were grouped into a MV-PCI or CO-PCI group. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at long-term follow-up (median 756 days (593−996)). Secondary endpoints were reinterventions, urgent CABG, myocardial infarction (MI) < 30 days, target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and mortality at 1 year. Propensity score matching analyses were performed. Results: In total, 10,507 NSTE-ACS patients with MVD were included into the MV-PCI (N = 4235) and CO-PCI group (N = 6272). Analysing crude data, mortality rates at long-term follow-up (10.7% vs. 10.2%; p = 0.383), mortality at 1 year (6.0% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.412) and MI <30 days (0.8% vs. 0.9%; p = 0.513) were similar between both groups. Reinterventions (11.1% vs. 20.0%; p < 0.001), urgent CABG (0.1% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.001) and TVR (5.2% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.003) occurred less often in the MV-PCI group. Survival analysis after multiple imputation and propensity score matching showed similar mortality rates at long-term follow-up (log-rank p = 0.289), but a significant reduction for reinterventions in the MV-PCI group (log-rank p < 0.001). Conclusion: NSTE-ACS patients with MVD undergoing MV-PCI have similar mortality rates at long-term follow-up compared to CO-PCI. However, improved event-free survival in terms of fewer coronary reinterventions was observed.

Target Vessel Versus Complete Revascularization in Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Without Cardiogenic Shock

Introduction

The role of complete revascularization (CR) vs target vessel revascularization (TVR) in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in patients without cardiogenic shock is still not established. In this study, we compared outcomes at one and six months among patients with NSTEMI with multivessel disease (MVD) undergoing CR vs TVR.

Methods

It was a prospective, observational study carried out among 60 NSTEMI patients with MVD (30 undergoing TVR and 30 CR) from October 2018 to November 2019. They were assessed at one and six months for primary and secondary outcomes.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 56.13 ± 9.23 years and both the groups were well matched with respect to age, gender, risk factors, and comorbidities. In the majority of patients, the target vessel was left anterior descending (LAD) followed by right coronary artery (RCA) and left circumflex (LCX) in both groups. The primary outcomes of death from any cause, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and the need for revascularization of the ischemia-driven vessel showed no significant difference at one and six months follow-up between the CR and TVR groups. However, the secondary outcomes of heart failure hospitalizations and angina episodes were significantly more in the TVR group than CR group at one month (6 vs 1, P=0.044), (8 vs 2, P=0.038) and six months (8 vs 2, P=0.038), (9 vs 2, P=0.02), respectively.

Conclusion

CR was associated with no difference in death from all-cause or future revascularization but significantly lesser secondary outcomes of heart failure hospitalizations and angina episodes as compared to TVR in NSTEMI without cardiogenic shock.

Prognostic Value of the Residual SYNTAX Score on In-Hospital and Follow-Up Clinical Outcomes in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

Aims

We investigated the prognostic significance of residual SYNTAX score (RSS) in patients undergoing PCI due to STEMI and relationship between RSS and in-hospital and long-term ischemic cardiac events.

Methods

Between June 2015 and December 2018, 538 patients who underwent primary PCI were evaluated for in-hospital events and 478 patients were evaluated for clinical events during follow-up. Primary and secondary endpoints for both in-hospital and follow-up periods were cardiac death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

Results

538 patients were included the study. RSS values of 131 patients were 0, and RSS values of 407 patients were >0. The median value of the RSS > 0 group was 7. According to this value, the RSS > 0 group was divided into 2 groups as R-ICR (RSS < 7, N = 188) and ICR (RSS ≥ 7, n = 219). In the RSS ≥ 7 group, during in-hospital and follow-up period, both mortality and MACE rates were higher than the other two groups. Area under the curve (AUC) for RSS for in-hospital death was found to be higher than SS (p=0.035) but similar to Grace Score (GS) (p=0.651). For MACE, RSS was higher than SS (p=0.025) and higher than the GS (p=0.041). For follow-up cardiac mortality, the AUC of the RSS was found to be higher than SS (0.870/0.763, p=0.02) and GS (0.870/0.733, p=0.001). For MACE, the AUC of RSS was higher than SS (p=0.03) and GS (p=0.004).

Conclusions

High RSS values in STEMI patients are associated with increased risk of ischemic cardiac events. RSS may help determine revascularization and level of additional PCI to improve prognosis by reducing the risk of ischemic cardiac events after P-PCI.

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.

Evidence in Guidelines for Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease

In this chapter, we focus on evidences in current guidelines for treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). In Part 1, diet and lifestyle management is discussed, which plays an important role in CAD risk control, including forming healthy dietary pattern, maintaining proper body weight, physical exercise, smoking cessation, and so on. Part 2 elaborated on revascularization strategies and medical treatments in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), including specific AHA and ESC guidelines on ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). Part 3 discussed chronic stable coronary artery disease (SCAD), the treatment objective of which is a combination of both symptomatic and prognostic improvement. Yet many of the recommendations for SCAD are expert-based rather than evidence-based. Initial medical treatment is safe and beneficial for most patients. While cumulating studies have focused on optimizing pharmacological therapy (referring to nitrates, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, antiplatelet agents, ACEI/ARB, statins, etc.), education, habitual modification, and social support matters a lot for reducing cardiac morbidity and mortality. Patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms and complex lesions should be considered for revascularization. But practical management of revascularization shall take individual characteristics, preference, and compliance into consideration as well.

Meta-analysis Comparing Multivessel Versus Culprit Coronary Arterial Revascularization for Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes

We present a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing efficacy and safety outcomes between single procedure multivessel revascularization (MVR) and culprit vessel only revascularization in patients presenting with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). NSTE-ACS is the most common form of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and multivessel disease is common. There is no consensus on the most efficacious single procedure revascularization strategy for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention not meeting coronary artery bypass grafting criteria. Studies in PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically reviewed, and 15 studies met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Baseline characteristics between the groups were similar. A random effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity of studies was assessed using Cochrane's Q and Higgins I² tests. For short-term outcomes, patients who underwent MVR had higher rates of major adverse cardiac events (OR 1.14; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.29; p = 0.03); and stroke (OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.72; p = 0.05), but lower rates of urgent or emergent coronary artery bypass grafting (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.43; p <0.00001). In the long-term, MVR patients had less frequent major adverse cardiac events (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.61-0.93; p = 0.009), all-cause death (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; p = 0.03), and repeat revascularization, (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; p = 0.01). MVR following NSTE-ACS was associated with higher short-term risk, but long-term benefit. In conclusion, these results support the use of single procedure multivessel revascularization for NSTE-ACS patients who are suitable candidates at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention.

Multivessel vs. culprit-only revascularization in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes and multivessel coronary disease

INTRODUCTION

There have been no prospective randomized trials that enable the best strategy and timing to be determined for revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

OBJECTIVES

To compare short- and long-term adverse events following multivessel vs. culprit-only revascularization in patients with NSTE-ACS and multivessel CAD.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study that included all patients diagnosed with NSTE-ACS and multivessel CAD who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between January 2010 and June 2013 (n=232). After exclusion of patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (n=30), a multivessel revascularization strategy was adopted in 35.1% of patients (n=71); in the others (n=131, 64.9%), only the culprit artery was revascularized. After propensity score matching (PSM), two groups of 66 patients were obtained, matched according to revascularization strategy.

RESULTS

During follow-up (1543±545 days), after PSM, patients undergoing multivessel revascularization had lower rates of reinfarction (4.5% vs. 16.7%; log-rank p=0.018), unplanned revascularization (6.1% vs. 16.7%; log-rank p=0.048), unplanned PCI (3.0% vs. 13.6%; log-rank p=0.023) and the combined endpoint of death, reinfarction and unplanned revascularization (16.7 vs. 31.8%; log-rank p=0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and multivessel CAD, a multivessel revascularization strategy was associated with lower rates of reinfarction, unplanned revascularization and unplanned PCI, as well as a reduction in the combined endpoint of death, reinfarction and unplanned revascularization.

Long-term outcomes of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease presenting non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

There is paucity of data concerning the optimal revascularization in patients with mul- tivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). The aim was to evaluate long-term outcomes of patients with multivessel CAD presenting NSTE-ACS depending on the management after coronary angiography.

METHODS

3,166 patients with NSTE-ACS hospitalized between 2006 and 2014 were screened. After ex- clusions, 1,342 patients were enrolled with multivessel CAD and were divided depending on their man- agement after coronary angiography; the medical-only therapy group (n = 91), the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) group (n = 1,122), the coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) group (n = 129). Propensity scores matching was used to adjust for differences in patient baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

After propensity score analysis, 273 well-matched patients were chosen. Both before and after matching, patients treated with a medical-only therapy were burdened with the highest percentage of 24-month all-cause death and non-fatal MI in comparison to PCI and CABG groups, respectively. In the CABG group, ACS-driven revascularization rate was lowest. In the overall population, PCI (HR 0.33; 95% CI 0.20-0.53; p < 0.0001) and CABG (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.93; p = 0.028) were independent factors associated with favorable 24-month prognosis. However, in a matched population only PCI was an independent predictor of long-term prognosis with a 63% decrease of 24-month mortal- ity (HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.19-0.69; p = 0.0020).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with multivessel CAD presenting with NSTE-ACS, medical-only man- agement is related with adverse long-term prognosis in contrast to revascularization, which reduces 24-month mortality, especially among patients undergoing percutaneous intervention. Performance of PCI is an independent factor for improving long-term prognosis.