Timing of Staged Nonculprit Artery Revascularization in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: COMPLETE Trial

Immediate versus staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease

BACKGROUND

Complete revascularisation is supported by recent trials in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) without cardiogenic shock. However, the optimal timing of non-culprit lesion revascularisation is currently debated.

AIMS

This prespecified analysis of the BioVasc trial aims to determine the effect of immediate complete revascularisation (ICR) compared to staged complete revascularisation (SCR) on clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI.

METHODS

Patients presenting with STEMI and MVD were randomly assigned to ICR or SCR. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation, or cerebrovascular events at 1-year post-index procedure.

RESULTS

Between June 2018 and October 2021, 608 (ICR: 305, SCR: 303) STEMI patients were enrolled. No significant differences between ICR and SCR were observed at 1-year follow-up in terms of the primary endpoint (7.0% vs 8.3%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47-1.50; p=0.55): all-cause mortality (2.3% vs 1.3%, HR 1.77, 95% CI: 0.52-6.04; p=0.36), myocardial infarction (1.7% vs 3.3%, HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.17-1.47; p=0.21), unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation (4.1% vs 5.0%, HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.38-1.71; p=0.57) and cerebrovascular events (1.4% vs 1.3%, HR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.25-4.03; p=0.99). At 30-day follow-up, a trend towards a reduction of the primary endpoint in the ICR group was observed (ICR: 3.0% vs SCR: 6.0%, HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.22-1.11; p=0.09). ICR was associated with a reduction in overall hospital stay (ICR: median 3 [interquartile range {IQR} 2-5] days vs SCR: median 4 [IQR 3-6] days; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes at 1 year were similar for STEMI patients who had undergone ICR and those who had undergone SCR.

Timing of fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: Rationale and design of the OPTION-STEMI trial

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend complete revascularization (CR) in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). With regard to the timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA), recent randomized clinical trials have revealed that immediate CR was non-inferior to staged CR. However, the optimal timing of CR remains uncertain. The OPTION-STEMI trial compared immediate CR and in-hospital staged CR guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) for intermediate stenosis of the non-IRA.

METHODS

The OPTION-STEMI is a multicenter, investigator-initiated, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority randomized clinical trial. The study included patients with at least 1 non-IRA lesion with ≥50% stenosis by visual estimation. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomized into 2 groups at a 1:1 ratio: immediate CR (i.e., PCI for the non-IRA performed during primary angioplasty) or in-hospital staged CR. In the in-hospital staged CR group, PCI for non-IRA lesions was performed on another day during the index hospitalization. Non-IRA lesions with 50%-69% stenosis by visual estimation were evaluated by FFR, whereas those with ≥70% stenosis was revascularized without FFR. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and all unplanned revascularization at 1 year after randomization. Enrolment began in December 2019 and was completed in January 2024. The follow-up for the primary endpoint will be completed in January 2025, and primary results will be available in the middle of 2025.

CONCLUSIONS

The OPTION-STEMI is a multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized trial that evaluated the timing of in-hospital CR with the aid of FFR in patients with STEMI and MVD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov. Unique identifier: NCT04626882; and URL: https://cris.nih.go.kr. Unique identifier: KCT0004457.

Culprit-Only Revascularization, Single-Setting Complete Revascularization, and Staged Complete Revascularization in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From a Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Complete revascularization improves cardiovascular outcomes compared with culprit-only revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction ([MI]; ST-segment-elevation MI or non-ST-segment-elevation MI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. However, the timing of complete revascularization (single-setting versus staged revascularization) is uncertain. The aim was to compare the outcomes of single-setting complete, staged complete, and culprit vessel-only revascularization in patients with acute MI and multivessel disease.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared 3 revascularization strategies.

RESULTS

From 16 randomized controlled trials that randomized 11 876 patients with acute MI and multivessel disease, both single-setting complete and staged complete revascularization reduced primary outcome (cardiovascular mortality/MI; odds ratio [OR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.41-0.65]; OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.62-0.88]), composite of all-cause mortality/MI (OR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.40-0.67]; OR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.91]), major adverse cardiovascular event (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.32-0.56]; OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.47-0.82]), MI (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.26-0.57]; OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.59-0.90]), and repeat revascularization (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.18-0.47]; OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.71]) compared with culprit-only revascularization. Single-setting complete revascularization reduced cardiovascular mortality/MI (OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.91]), major adverse cardiovascular event (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.50-0.91]), and all-cause mortality/MI driven by a lower risk of MI (OR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.36-0.77]) compared with staged complete revascularization. Single-setting complete revascularization ranked number 1, followed by staged complete revascularization (number 2) and culprit-only revascularization (number 3) for all outcomes. The results were largely consistent in subgroup analysis comparing ST-segment-elevation MI versus non-ST-segment-elevation MI cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-setting complete revascularization may offer the greatest reductions in cardiovascular events in patients with acute MI and multivessel disease. A large-scale randomized trial of single-setting complete versus staged complete revascularization is warranted to evaluate the optimal timing of complete revascularization.

Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients Presenting with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Coronary Disease Without Cardiac Shock: A Study-Level Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Achieving full revascularization via percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may enhance the prognosis of individuals diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel coronary disease (MVD). The present work focused on investigating whether PCI should be performed during staged or index procedures for non-culprit lesions.

METHODS

Electronic databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were systematically explored to locate studies contrasting immediate revascularization with staged complete revascularization for patients who experienced ACS and MVD without cardiac shock. The outcome measures comprised major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (UIDR).

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials involving 3550 patients, including 1780 who received immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and 1770 who received staged complete revascularization (SCR), were included in the analysis. The ICR group had lower MACEs (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.61~0.87, P = 0.0004), MI (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37~0.77, P = 0.0008), and UIDR (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.50~0.81, P = 0.0003) than did the SCR group. All-cause mortality, CVD incidence, and stroke incidence did not significantly differ between the two groups. According to our subgroup analyses based on the time window of the SCR, the ICR group had significantly fewer MACEs (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56~0.88, P = 0.003), MI (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37~0.77, P = 0.0002), and UIDR (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.40~0.77, P = 0.0004) than did the subgroup of patients who were between discharge and 45 days.

CONCLUSION

Compared with patients in the SCR group, patients in the ICR group had decreased MACEs, MI, and UIDR, especially between discharge and 45 days. All-cause mortality and CVD incidence were not significantly different between the two groups.

Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A strategy of complete revascularization (CR) is recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). However, the optimal timing of CR remains equivocal. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate CR (ICR) with staged CR in patients with ACS and MVD. Our primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. All outcomes were assessed at 3 time points: in-hospital or at 30 days, at 6 months to 1 year, and at >1 year. Data were pooled in RevMan 5.4 using risk ratios as the effect measure. A total of 9 RCTs (7,506 patients) were included in our review. A total of 7 trials enrolled patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 1 enrolled patients with non-STEMI only, and 1 enrolled patients with all types of ACS. There was no difference between ICR and staged CR regarding all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at any time window. ICR reduced the rate of myocardial infarction and decreased the rate of repeat revascularization at 6 months and beyond. The rates of cerebrovascular events and stent thrombosis were similar between the 2 groups. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis demonstrated a lower rate of myocardial infarction and a reduction in repeat revascularization at and after 6 months with ICR strategy in patients with mainly STEMI and MVD. The 2 groups had no difference in the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Further RCTs are needed to provide more definitive conclusions and investigate CR strategies in other ACS.

Immediate multivessel revascularization after myocardial infarction: change of strategy?

Multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) is a frequently encountered condition in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit vessel. Several studies have demonstrated the benefit of complete coronary revascularization compared with the treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with STEMI. Based on this evidence, the current European guidelines recommend that in haemodynamically stable patients with STEMI and MVD, routine complete revascularization should be achieved either during the same procedure in concomitance with the treatment of the culprit lesion (immediate multivessel PCI) or with a subsequent intervention within 45 days from the index PCI of the culprit lesion (deferred multivessel PCI). However, the guidelines do not express a preference for immediate vs. delayed multivessel PCI. Therefore, the optimal timing of the treatment of non-culprit lesions in patients with STEMI and haemodynamic stability is still debated and has been evaluated in recent studies that showed the non-inferiority of immediate vs. delayed multivessel PCI. The article discusses the results and clinical implications of these studies on the timing of complete revascularization of non-culprit lesions in haemodynamically stable patients with STEMI.

Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease

The proportion of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in individuals experiencing acute coronary syndrome (ACS) varies based on age and ACS subtype. In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) without cardiogenic shock, the prognostic benefit of complete revascularization has been demonstrated by several randomized trials and meta-analyses, leading to a strong guideline recommendation. However, similar data are lacking for ACS without ST-segment elevation (NSTE-ACS). Non-randomized data suggesting a benefit from complete revascularization in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) are prone to selection bias and should be interpreted with caution. A series of large randomized controlled trials have been initiated recently to address these open questions.

Evaluation of Nonculprit Coronary Artery Lesions in Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Background:

Multivessel coronary artery disease is a common finding during the primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). It might be a cause for recurrent attacks. This study aimed to evaluate nonculprit lesions (NCLs) encountered in the three major epicardial coronary arteries.

Methods:

Patients with STEMI who underwent PPCI and matched the study inclusion criteria were enrolled. They were evaluated clinically, biomedically, and coronary angiographically. The coronary angiography analysis was examined by four cardiologists using the Quantitative Coronary Artery Analysis software. The data was analyzed statistically.

Results:

Of the 154 patients included in the study, 130 (84.4%) were males and 24 (15.6%) were females, with a mean age of 52.92 ± 13.14 years. Five hundred seventy-four NCLs were found in 132 (85.7%) patients. Nonobstructive lesions with stenosis less than 70% of vessel diameter were more frequent than obstructive lesions. The left circumflex coronary artery (LCX) was the first one of the three major arteries to be affected by obstructive NCLs. The obstructive NCLs were 128 in number; found in 78 (50.4%) patients; 65 (50.8%) of them were in LCX; 32 (25%) were in left anterior descending (25%); and 31 (24.2%) were in right coronary artery.

Conclusions:

NCLs are common among STEMI patients. LCX obstructive NCLs are comparable to those in the other two major epicardial coronary arteries, with respect to frequency and severity of luminal stenosis.

Outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock treated with culprit vessel-only versus multivessel primary PCI

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Multivessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is still often used in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aimed to compare the characteristics and prognosis of patients with CS-STEMI and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) treated with culprit vessel-only pPCI or multivessel-pPCI during the initial procedure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From 2016 to 2020, 23,703 primary PCI patients with STEMI were included in a national all-comers registry of cardiovascular interventions. Of them, 1,213 (5.1%) patients had CS and MVD at admission to the hospital. Initially, 921 (75.9%) patients were treated with culprit vessel (CV)-pPCI and 292 (24.1%) with multivessel (MV)-pPCI.

RESULTS

Patients with 3-vessel disease and left main disease had a higher probability of being treated with MV-pPCI than patients with 2-vessel disease and patients without left main disease (28.5% vs. 18.6%; p < 0.001 and 37.7% vs. 20.6%; p < 0.001). Intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and other mechanical circulatory support systems were more often used in patients with MV-pPCI. Thirty (30)-day and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were similar in the CV-pPCI and MV-pPCI groups (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 1.32; p = 0.937 and 1.1; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.44; p = 0.477). The presence of 3-vessel disease and the use of ECMO were the strongest adjusted predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data from an extensive all-comers registry suggests that selective use of MV-pPCI does not increase the all-cause mortality rate in patients with CS-STEMI and MVD compared to CV-pPCI.

Quantitative Flow Ratio to Predict Non-Target-Vessel Events Before Planned Staged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

The optimal time point of staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains a matter of debate. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel noninvasive method to assess the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses. We aimed to investigate whether QFR could refine the timing of staged PCI of non-target vessels (non-TVs) on top of clinical judgment for patients with ACS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

For this cohort study, patients with ACS from Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, scheduled to undergo out-of-hospital non-TV staged PCI were eligible. The primary end point was the composite of non-TV myocardial infarction and urgent unplanned non-TV PCI before planned staged PCI. The association between lowest QFR per patient measured in the non-TV (from index angiogram) and the primary end point was assessed using multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards regressions with QFR included as linear or penalized spline (nonlinear) term. QFR was measured in 1093 of 1432 patients with ACS scheduled to undergo non-TV staged PCI. Median time to staged PCI was 28 days. The primary end point occurred in 5% of the patients. In multivariable analysis (1018 patients), there was no independent association between non-TV QFR and the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.69-1.05] per 0.1 increase; P=0.125; nonlinear P=0.648).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with ACS scheduled to undergo staged PCI at a median of 4 weeks after index PCI, QFR did not emerge as an independent predictor of non-TV events before planned staged PCI. Thus, this study does not provide conceptual evidence that QFR is helpful to refine the timing of staged PCI on top of clinical judgment.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02241291.

Effects of complete revascularization according to age in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (COMPLETE-AGE)

BACKGROUND

In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit-lesion-only PCI. Whether age influences these results remains unknown.

METHODS

COMPLETE was a multinational, randomized trial evaluating a strategy of staged complete revascularization, consisting of angiography-guided PCI of all suitable nonculprit lesions, versus a strategy of culprit-lesion-only PCI. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, treatment effect according to age (≥65 years vs <65 years) was determined for the first coprimary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or new myocardial infarction (MI) and the second coprimary outcome of CV death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR). Median follow-up was 35.8 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 27.6-44.3 months).

RESULTS

Of 4,041 patients randomized in COMPLETE, 1,613 were aged ≥ 65 years (39.9%). Higher event rates were observed for both coprimary outcomes in patients aged ≥ 65 years comparted with those aged < 65 years (11.2% vs 7.9%, HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.22-1.83; 14.4% vs 11.8%, HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07-1.52, respectively). Complete revascularization reduced the first coprimary outcome in patients ≥ 65 years (9.7% vs 12.5%, HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.58-1.04) and < 65 years (6.7% vs 9.1%, HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96)(interaction P = .74). The second coprimary outcome was reduced in those ≥ 65 years (HR 0.56, 95% CI, 0.43-0.74) and < 65 years (HR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.37-0.61 (interaction P = .37). A sensitivity analysis was performed with consistent results demonstrated using a 75-year threshold (albeit attenuated).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization compared with culprit-lesion-only PCI reduced major cardiovascular events regardless of patient age and could be considered as a revascularization strategy in older adults.

Facility-based approach for the management of acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock in a rural medical centre: the Durango model

INTRODUCTION

Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicates 5%-15% of cases of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with inpatient mortality greater than 40%. The implementation of standardised protocols may improve clinical outcomes in patients with AMI-CS.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Durango model is a prospective single-centre registry designed to enable early identification of patients with STEMI-CS to facilitate primary reperfusion therapy with a shock team management algorithm in a rural level II heart attack centre. This prospective registry includes all patients >18 years of age presenting with STEMI with or without CS beginning on 1 February 2023. The primary outcome measures are adherence to model-based documentation of SCAI shock Classification prehospital and in the ED with appropriate STEMI shock alert for AMI and stages C, D, E shock; use of mechanical circulatory support Pre-PCI and door to support time <90 min.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board with a waiver of informed consent. The findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-review open access journal on completion of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The Durango model will demonstrate that the implementation of a STEMI shock team can be feasible in a rural medical centre through comprehensive education of a diverse group providers with different levels of experience, continuous model/device proficiency training and performance feedback.

Timing of Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel coronary artery disease, the time at which complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions should be performed remains unknown.

METHODS

We performed an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial at 37 sites in Europe. Patients in a hemodynamically stable condition who had STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; immediate group) or PCI of the culprit lesion followed by staged multivessel PCI of nonculprit lesions within 19 to 45 days after the index procedure (staged group). The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year after randomization. The percentages of patients with a primary or secondary end-point event are provided as Kaplan-Meier estimates at 6 months and at 1 year.

RESULTS

We assigned 418 patients to undergo immediate multivessel PCI and 422 to undergo staged multivessel PCI. A primary end-point event occurred in 35 patients (8.5%) in the immediate group as compared with 68 patients (16.3%) in the staged group (risk ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.72; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P<0.001 for superiority). Nonfatal myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization occurred in 8 patients (2.0%) and 17 patients (4.1%), respectively, in the immediate group and in 22 patients (5.3%) and 39 patients (9.3%), respectively, in the staged group. The risk of death from any cause, the risk of stroke, and the risk of hospitalization for heart failure appeared to be similar in the two groups. A total of 104 patients in the immediate group and 145 patients in the staged group had a serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients in hemodynamically stable condition with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, immediate multivessel PCI was noninferior to staged multivessel PCI with respect to the risk of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year. (Supported by Boston Scientific; MULTISTARS AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03135275.).

Complete Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization in Acute Coronary Syndromes With Multivessel Coronary Disease: A Systematic Review

Multivessel disease (MVD) affects approximately 50% of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and is significantly burdened by poor outcomes and high mortality. It represents a clinical challenge in patient management and decision making and subtends an evolving research area related to the pathophysiology of unstable plaques and local or systemic inflammation. The benefits of complete revascularization are established in hemodynamically stable ACS patients with MVD, and guidelines provide some reference points to inform clinical practice, based on an evidence level that is solid for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and less robust for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. However, several areas of uncertainty remain, such as the optimal timing for complete revascularization or the best guiding strategy for intermediate stenoses. We performed a systematic review of current evidence in the field of percutaneous revascularization in ACS and MVD, also including future perspectives from ongoing trials that will directly compare different timing strategies and investigate the role of invasive and noninvasive guidance techniques. (Complete percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease; CRD42022383123).

Propensity Matched Comparison of Clinical Outcome After Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease

Complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD) improves clinical outcomes compared with culprit-only revascularization, but the optimal timing for non-culprit lesions treatment remains unclear. This study evaluated patients presenting with ACS and MVD admitted between January 2015 and September 2021 at the Erasmus University Medical Center. Clinical outcomes were compared between immediate and staged CR in terms of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and any unplanned revascularization. A total of 1,400 patients presenting with ACS and MVD who underwent immediate or staged CR were included in this study. Using 1/many propensity score matching without replacement, 299 patients in the staged CR group were matched to 598 patients in the immediate CR group (mean 1:2 ratio), rendering a total of 897 patients for analysis. The median follow-up period was 648 days. MACCE rate was significantly higher in the staged CR group than in the immediate CR group (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.60 [1.05 to 2.45], p = 0.03). Furthermore, number of stents, stent length, and contrast usage were significantly greater in the staged revascularization group. Immediate CR was associated with less risk of MACCE than was staged CR. Staged CR required overall more contrast and stent material.

Complete Revascularization Versus Culprit-Lesion-Only PCI in STEMI Patients With Diabetes and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Results From the COMPLETE Trial

BACKGROUND

In the COMPLETE trial (Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization to Treat Multivessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI), a strategy of complete revascularization reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events compared with culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. Patients with diabetes have a worse prognosis following STEMI. We evaluated the consistency of the effects of complete revascularization in patients with and without diabetes.

METHODS

The COMPLETE trial randomized a strategy of complete revascularization, consisting of angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention of all suitable nonculprit lesions, versus a strategy of culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (guideline-directed medical therapy alone). In prespecified analyses, treatment effects were determined in patients with and without diabetes on the first coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death or new myocardial infarction and the second coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death, new myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. Interaction P values were calculated to evaluate whether there was a differential treatment effect in patients with and without diabetes.

RESULTS

Of the 4041 patients enrolled in the COMPLETE trial, 787 patients (19.5%) had diabetes. The median HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin) was 7.7% in the diabetes group and 5.7% in the nondiabetes group. Complete revascularization consistently reduced the first coprimary outcome in patients with diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.59-1.29]) and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.90]), with no evidence of a differential treatment effect (interaction P=0.36). Similarly, for the second coprimary outcome, no differential treatment effect (interaction P=0.27) of complete revascularization was found in patients with diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.43-0.87]) and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.39-0.60]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease, the benefit of complete revascularization over a culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention strategy was consistent regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.

Impact of Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs. Culprit Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trials have shown that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-culprit lesions (NCLs) reduces the risk of adverse events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but the effect on long-term outcomes remains unclear in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients and a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study of ACS patients who underwent primary PCI between April 2004 and December 2017 at Juntendo University Shizuoka Hospital, Japan, was performed. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular disease death (CVD death) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) during the mean follow-up period of 2.7 years, and a landmark analysis for the incidence of the primary endpoint from 31 days to 5 years between the multivessel PCI group and the culprit only PCI group was performed. Multivessel PCI was defined as PCI including non-infarct-related coronary arteries within 30 days after the onset of ACS.

RESULTS

Of the 1109 ACS patients with multivessel coronary artery disease of the current cohort, multivessel PCI was performed in 364 (33.2 %) patients. The incidence of the primary endpoint from 31 days to 5 years was significantly lower in the multivessel PCI group (4.0 % vs. 9.6 %, log-rank p = 0.0008). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that multivessel PCI was significantly associated with fewer cardiovascular events (HR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.19-0.67, p = 0.0008).

CONCLUSION

In ACS patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, multivessel PCI may reduce the risk of CVD death and non-fatal MI compared to culprit-lesion-only PCI.

Impact of Complete Revascularization on Development of Heart Failure in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease: A Subanalysis of the CORALYS Registry

Background The impact of complete revascularization (CR) on the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains to be elucidated. Methods and Results Consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome with multivessel coronary artery disease from the CORALYS (Incidence and Predictors of Heart Failure After Acute Coronary Syndrome) registry were included. Incidence of first hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death was the primary end point. Patients were stratified according to completeness of coronary revascularization. Of 14 699 patients in the CORALYS registry, 5054 presented with multivessel disease. One thousand four hundred seventy-three (29.2%) underwent CR, while 3581 (70.8%) did not. Over 5 years follow-up, CR was associated with a reduced incidence of the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51-0.85]), first HF hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.49-0.90]) along with all-cause death and cardiovascular death alone (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56-0.97] and HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.38-0.84], respectively). The results were consistent in the propensity-score matching population and in inverse probability treatment weighting analysis. The benefit of CR was consistent across acute coronary syndrome presentations (HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.89] for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.50-0.99] for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome) and in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >40% (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.37-0.72]), while no benefit was observed in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.37-1.10], P for interaction 0.04). Conclusions CR after acute coronary syndrome reduced the risk of first hospitalization for HF and cardiovascular death, as well as first HF hospitalization, and cardiovascular and overall death both in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04895176.

Single-Session Versus Staged Multivessel Optimal IVUS-Guided PCI in Patients With CCS or NSTE-ACS

Background

There are no studies comparing single-session vs staged multivessel intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) or non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).

Objectives

The authors aimed to compare single-session vs staged multivessel IVUS-guided PCI in patients with CCS or NSTE-ACS.

Methods

The OPTIVUS-Complex PCI study multivessel cohort was a prospective multicenter single-arm trial enrolling 1,021 patients with CCS or NSTE-ACS undergoing multivessel PCI including left anterior descending coronary artery using IVUS aiming to meet the prespecified OPTIVUS criteria for optimal stent expansion. We compared single-session vs staged multivessel PCI. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any coronary revascularization.

Results

There were 246 patients (24.1%) undergoing single-session multivessel PCI, and 775 patients (75.9%) undergoing staged multivessel PCI. There was a wide variation in the prevalence of single-session multivessel PCI across the participating centers. The staged multivessel PCI group more often had complex coronary anatomy such as 3-vessel disease, chronic total occlusion, and calcified lesions requiring an atherectomy device compared with the single-session multivessel PCI group. The rates of PCI success, procedural complications, and meeting OPTIVUS criteria were not different between groups. The cumulative 1-year incidence of the primary endpoint was not different between single-session and staged multivessel PCI groups (9.0% vs 10.8%, log-rank P = 0.42). After adjusting confounders, the effect of single-session multivessel PCI relative to staged multivessel PCI was not significant for the primary endpoint (HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.58-1.55; P = 0.84).

Conclusions

Single-session and staged multivessel IVUS-guided PCI had similar 1-year outcomes.

Coronary CT-based FFR in patients with acute myocardial infarction might predict follow-up invasive FFR: The XPECT-MI study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate whether invasive fractional flow reserve (FFRi) of non-infarction related (non-IRA) lesions changes over time in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. Moreover, we assessed the diagnostic performance of coronary CT angiography-derived FFR(FFRCT) following the index event in predicting follow-up FFRi.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 38 STEMI patients (mean age 61.6 ​± ​9 years, 23.1% female) who underwent non-IRA baseline and follow-up FFRi measurements and a baseline FFRCT (within ≤10 days after STEMI). Follow-up FFRi was performed at 45-60 days (FFRi and FFRCT value of ≤0.8 was considered positive).

RESULTS

FFRi values showed significant difference between baseline and follow-up (median and interquartile range (IQR) 0.85 [0.78-0.92] vs. 0.81 [0.73-0.90] p ​= ​0.04, respectively). Median FFRCT was 0.81 [0.68-0.93]. In total, 20 lesions were positive on FFRCT. A stronger correlation and smaller bias were found between FFRCT and follow-up FFRi (ρ ​= ​0.86,p ​< ​0.001,bias:0.01) as compared with baseline FFRi (ρ ​= ​0.68, p ​< ​0.001,bias:0.04). Comparing follow-up FFRi and FFRCT, no false negatives but two false positive cases were found. The overall accuracy was 94.7%, with sensitivity and specificity of 100.0% and 90.0% for identifying lesions ≤0.8 on FFRi. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 81.5%, 93.3%, and 73.9%, respectively, for identifying significant lesions on baseline FFRi using index FFRCT.

CONCLUSION

FFRCT in STEMI patients close to the index event could identify hemodynamically relevant non-IRA lesions with higher accuracy than FFRi measured at the index PCI, using follow-up FFRi as the reference standard. Early FFRCT in STEMI patients might represent a new application for cardiac CT to improve the identification of patients who benefit most from staged non-IRA revascularization.

Timing and modality of complete revascularization in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease

Approximately half of the patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction have also significant atherosclerotic disease affecting coronary segments other than the infarct-related artery. Optimal management of residual lesions in this clinical setting has been a topic of intense research in the last decade. On the one hand, a large body of evidence has consistently shown the benefit of complete revascularization for the reduction of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. On the other hand, some crucial aspects such as the optimal timing or the best strategy of the complete treatment approach remain a matter of controversy. In this review, we aim to provide a thorough critical appraisal of the available literature regarding this topic, by discussing areas of relative certainty, gaps in the knowledge, approach to specific clinical subsets and future research directions.

Immediate versus staged complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease: results from a prematurely discontinued randomized multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between immediate and staged complete revascularization in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for treating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD).

METHODS

A total of 248 patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, and multicenter registry. Immediate revascularization was defined as one-time PCI of culprit and non-culprit lesions at the initial procedure. Staged revascularization was defined as PCI of non-culprit lesions at a later date (mean, 4.4 days; interquartile range, 1-11.4), following initial culprit revascularization. The end points were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite of total death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and revascularization), any individual components of MACE, cardiac death, stent thrombosis, and stroke at 12 months.

RESULTS

During a follow-up of 1 year, MACE occurred in 12 patients (11.6%) in the immediate revascularization group and in 8 patients (7.5%) in staged revascularization group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-3.91). The incidence of total death was numerically higher in the immediate group than in the staged group (9.7% vs 2.8%, HR 3.53, 95% CI 0.97-12.84); There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in risks of any individual component of MACE, cardiac death, stroke, and in-hospital complications, such as need for transfusion, bleeding, acute renal failure, and acute heart failure. This study was prematurely terminated due to halt of production of everolimus-eluting stents (manufactured as PROMUS Element by Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to its limited power, no definite conclusion can be drawn regarding complete revascularization strategy from the present study. Further large randomized clinical trials would be warranted to confirm optimal timing of complete revascularization for patients with STEMI and MVD.

Acute coronary syndromes and multivessel coronary artery disease

Patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease are frequently encountered during clinical practice and those patients are at higher risk of subsequent acute cardiovascular events. In patients presenting with both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, complete revascularization is associated with decreased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. Nevertheless, the optimal timing of the intervention and treatment modality are still in discussions. Furthermore, non-culprit lesions assessment based on stenosis severity, either on visual or on functional evaluation, may not provide information about vulnerable plaques prone to thrombosis. Therefore, insights from intracoronary imaging could further identify high-risk plaque and patients at higher risk of future adverse events. This article aims to provide an overview of current guideline recommendations, envisioning future perspectives for the treatment of patients with ACS and multivessel disease.

Immediate versus staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease (BIOVASC): a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease, complete revascularisation by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with improved clinical outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PCI for non-culprit lesions should be attempted during the index procedure or staged.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial was done at 29 hospitals across Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. We included patients aged 18-85 years presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel (ie, two or more coronary arteries with a diameter of 2·5 mm or more and ≥70% stenosis based on visual estimation or positive coronary physiology testing) coronary artery disease with a clearly identifiable culprit lesion. A web-based randomisation module was used to randomly assign patients (1:1), with a random block size of four to eight, stratified by study centre, to undergo immediate complete revascularisation (PCI of the culprit lesion first, followed by other non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator during the index procedure) or staged complete revascularisation (PCI of only the culprit lesion during the index procedure and PCI of all non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator within 6 weeks after the index procedure). The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation, or cerebrovascular events at 1 year after the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation at 1 year after the index procedure. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat. Non-inferiority of immediate to staged complete revascularisation was considered to be met if the upper boundary of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not exceed 1·39. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03621501.

FINDINGS

Between June 26, 2018, and Oct 21, 2021, 764 patients (median age 65·7 years [IQR 57·2-72·9] and 598 [78·3%] males) were randomly assigned to the immediate complete revascularisation group and 761 patients (median age 65·3 years [58·6-72·9] and 589 [77·4%] males) were randomly assigned to the staged complete revascularisation group, and were included in the intention-to-treat population. The primary outcome at 1 year occurred in 57 (7·6%) of 764 patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 71 (9·4%) of 761 patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·55-1·11, pnon-inferiority=0·0011). There was no difference in all-cause death between the immediate and staged complete revascularisation groups (14 [1·9%] vs nine [1·2%]; HR 1·56, 95% CI 0·68-3·61, p=0·30). Myocardial infarction occurred in 14 (1·9%) patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 34 (4·5%) patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·76, p=0·0045). More unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisations were performed in the staged complete revascularisation group than in the immediate complete revascularisation group (50 [6·7%] patients vs 31 [4·2%] patients; HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·39-0·95, p=0·030).

INTERPRETATION

In patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, immediate complete revascularisation was non-inferior to staged complete revascularisation for the primary composite outcome and was associated with a reduction in myocardial infarction and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation.

FUNDING

Erasmus University Medical Center and Biotronik.

Complete revascularization in acute myocardial infarction: a clinical review

In patients with ST segment elevation and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI), multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease is found in approximately 50%, leading to worse clinical outcomes. Recent data have suggested that complete revascularization with MV percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events as compared to culprit vessel-only revascularization. However, the optimal timing of MV intervention, appropriate non-culprit lesion assessment, and the best revascularization strategy in specific subsets such as cardiogenic shock remain to be established. This review article summarizes current evidence on revascularization strategies in patients with acute MI and MV disease.

Management of Non-Culprit Lesions in STEMI Patients with Multivessel Disease

Multivessel disease is observed in approximately 50% of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Data from randomized clinical trials has shown that complete revascularization in the STEMI setting improves clinical outcomes by reducing the risk of reinfarction and urgent revascularization. However, the timing and modality of revascularization of non-culprit lesions are still debated. PCI of non-culprit lesions can be performed during the index primary PCI or as a staged procedure and can be guided by angiography, functional assessment, or intracoronary imaging. In this review, we summarize the available evidence about the management of non-culprit lesions in STEMI patients with or without cardiogenic shock.

Treatment strategies of acute myocardial infarction: updates on revascularization, pharmacological therapy, and beyond

Owing to recent advances in early reperfusion strategies, pharmacological therapy, standardized care, and the identification of vulnerable patient subsets, the prognosis of acute myocardial infarction has improved. However, there is still considerable room for improvement. This review article summarizes the latest evidence concerning clinical diagnosis and treatment of acute myocardial infarction.

Multivessel vs. culprit vessel-only percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with and without cardiogenic shock

Background

Early revascularization of the culprit vessel is the most effective treatment for reducing the risk of mortality from acute STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock. However, the most recent trends and impact of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during the index hospitalization on in-hospital outcomes are unknown.

Methods

The National Inpatient Sample was queried from October 2015 to 2019 for hospitalizations with STEMI. The impact of multivessel PCI on in-hospital outcomes of patients with and without cardiogenic shock was evaluated.

Results

Of 624,605 STEMI hospitalizations treated with PCI, 12.5% were complicated by cardiogenic shock. Among hospitalizations without cardiogenic shock, 15.7% were treated by multivessel PCI, which declined from 20.8% in 2015 to 13.9% in 2019 (P _trend < 0.001). Multivessel and culprit-only PCI had similar rates of In-hospital mortality (2.4 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.027) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; 7.4 vs. 7.2%, p = 0.072). Among hospitalizations with cardiogenic shock, 22.1% were treated by multivessel PCI, which declined from 29.2% in 2015 to 19.4% in 2019 (P _trend < 0.001). Multivessel PCI was associated with higher rates of in-hospital mortality (30.9 vs. 28.4%, p < 0.001) and MACCE (39.9 vs. 36.5%, p < 0.001) than culprit-only PCI.

Conclusion

The frequency of multivessel PCI for STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock is declining. Multivessel PCI is associated with worse in-hospital outcomes for STEMI with cardiogenic shock but not for STEMI without cardiogenic shock.

The optimal timing for non-culprit percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: A pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background and aims

Recently, several randomized trials have shown that patients with multivessel disease (MVD) often pursue complete revascularization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to improve their prognosis. However, the optimal time for the non-culprit artery has been controversial. This study aimed to determine the optimal strategy for revascularization in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing three revascularization strategies [i.e., complete revascularization at the index procedure (CR), complete revascularization as a staged procedure (SR), or culprit-only revascularization (COR)] in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were included. We performed both pairwise and network meta-analyses. Network meta-analysis was performed using mixed treatment comparison models.

Results

17 trials with 8568 patients were included. In the network meta-analysis, the most interesting finding was that staged revascularization increased the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) compared with complete revascularization at the index procedure [odds ratio (OR): 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07–3.49]. In the pairwise meta-analysis, complete revascularization reduced the incidence of MACE [risk ratio (RR): 0.62, 95% CI: 0.48–0.79, p &lt; 0.001], mainly because it reduced the probability of unplanned repeat revascularization (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.33–0.75, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, or nonfatal re-myocardial infarction (MI).

Conclusion

Our analysis suggests that complete revascularization should be performed in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, and complete revascularization at the index procedure is superior to staged revascularization in reducing the risk of MACE events.

Management of patients with ST-segment myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: what are the options in 2022?

Multivessel coronary disease is a frequent finding in patients with STEMI. However, choosing the optimal treatment strategy for these patients can be challenging. The benefit of complete versus culprit-vessel-only revascularization demonstrated by several studies led to a change in the current 2018 ESC/EACTS revascularization guidelines recommending treatment of nonculprit lesions before hospital discharge. This article summarizes current data in this area, looks at remaining knowledge gaps and gives an outlook regarding ongoing trials. The latter will provide further robust evidence for the optimal management of patients with STEMI and multivessel disease.

Prevalence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Angiographically Significant Coronary Artery Disease of Non-Infarct-Related Artery

Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) can present with angiographically significant coronary artery disease (CAD) of non-infarct-related artery (IRA) or with IRA-only CAD. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence, predictors, and outcome of patients with STEMI and angiographically significant CAD of non-IRA. All consecutive patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention between 2000 and 2020 were included. Angiographically significant CAD was defined as >50% stenosis of the left main coronary artery and/or >90% stenosis for all other coronary arteries. A total of 2,663 patients had IRA-only CAD (80.2%) and 657 had angiographically significant non-IRA CAD (19.8%). Independent predictors for non-IRA CAD were male gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05 to 1.70, p = 0.021), age >50 years (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.91, p = 0.007), and diabetes mellitus (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.9, p <0.001), whereas smoking (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99, p = 0.004) and family history of CAD (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.98, p = 0.032) were found to be negatively associated with non-IRA CAD. In-hospital 30-day and 1- and 5-year all-cause mortality were higher in patients with non-IRA CAD compared with IRA-only CAD (5.8% vs 2.5%, 8.5% vs 3.3%, 18.4% vs 7.6% and 36.3% vs 20.3%, respectively; p for all <0.001). In conclusion, 20% of patients with STEMI had angiographically significant non-IRA CAD. Older age, male gender, and diabetes mellitus were independent predictors for non-IRA CAD, whereas smoking and family history of CAD predicted IRA-only CAD. The presence of non-IRA CAD was associated with higher short- and long-term all-cause mortality rates.

Immediate versus staged revascularisation of non-culprit arteries in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Although there is robust evidence that revascularisation of non-culprit vessels should be pursued in patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD), the optimal timing of complete revascularisation remains disputed. In this systematic review and meta-analysis our results suggest that outcomes are comparable for immediate and staged complete revascularisation in patients with ACS and MVD. However, evidence from randomised controlled trials remains scarce and cautious interpretation of these results is recommended. More non-biased evidence is necessary to aid future decision making on the optimal timing of complete revascularisation.

The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a pairwise and network meta-analysis

Objective:

To investigate the optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease.

Methods:

Trials that randomized patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease to immediate multivessel PCI, staged multivessel PCI, or culprit-only PCI and prospective observational studies that investigated all-cause death were included. Random effect risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

Results:

A total of 13 randomized trials with 7627 patients and 21 prospective observational studies with 60311 patients were included. In the pairwise and network meta-analysis based on randomized trials, immediate or staged multivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk of long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE; RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.74) than culprit-only PCI, which was mainly due to lower risks of myocardial infarction (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.88) and revascularization (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.51), without any significant difference in all-cause death (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.04; I² = 0.0%). However, short-term outcomes were deficient in randomized trials. The results from real-world prospective observational studies suggested that staged multivessel PCI reduced long-term all-cause death (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.71; I² = 15.6%), whereas immediate multivessel PCI increased short-term all-cause death (RR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.22 to 2.05; I² = 43.8%) relative to culprit-only PCI.

Conclusion:

For patients in randomized trials, multivessel PCI in an immediate or staged procedure was preferred due to improvements in long-term outcomes. As a supplement, the results in real-world patients derived from prospective observational studies suggested that staged multivessel PCI was superior to immediate multivessel PCI. Therefore, staged multivessel PCI may be the optimal PCI strategy for patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease.

Right Ventricular Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiac Arrest: Utilization of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

A 44-year-old male with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to an acute left ventricular (LV) inferoposterior wall myocardial infarction (MI) involving the right ventricle (RV) is presented. This case highlights the challenges in the management of patients with cardiac arrest, indications for use of ventricular assist devices, potential effects of LV assist devices on the RV in the setting of RV MI, and culprit versus complete coronary artery revascularization in these patients.

CVIT expert consensus document on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) update 2022

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) has significantly contributed to reducing the mortality of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) even in cardiogenic shock and is now the standard of care in most of Japanese institutions. The Task Force on Primary PCI of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Interventional and Therapeutics (CVIT) society proposed an expert consensus document for the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) focusing on procedural aspects of primary PCI in 2018. Updated guidelines for the management of AMI were published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in 2017 and 2020. Major changes in the guidelines for STEMI patients included: (1) radial access and drug-eluting stents (DES) over bare-metal stents (BMS) were recommended as a Class I indication, (2) complete revascularization before hospital discharge (either immediate or staged) is now considered as Class IIa recommendation. In 2020, updated guidelines for Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) patients, the followings were changed: (1) an early invasive strategy within 24 h is recommended in patients with NSTEMI as a Class I indication, (2) complete revascularization in NSTEMI patients without cardiogenic shock is considered as Class IIa recommendation, and (3) in patients with atrial fibrillation following a short period of triple antithrombotic therapy, dual antithrombotic therapy (e.g., DOAC and single oral antiplatelet agent preferably clopidogrel) is recommended, with discontinuation of the antiplatelet agent after 6 to 12 months. Furthermore, an aspirin-free strategy after PCI has been investigated in several trials those have started to show the safety and efficacy. The Task Force on Primary PCI of the CVIT group has now proposed the updated expert consensus document for the management of AMI focusing on procedural aspects of primary PCI in 2022 version.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Effect of Timing of Staged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes

Background

Complete revascularization reduces cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) and multivessel disease. The optimal time point of non–target‐vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of early (<4 weeks) versus late (≥4 weeks) staged PCI of non–target‐vessels in patients with ACS scheduled for staged PCI after hospital discharge.

Methods and Results

All patients with ACS undergoing planned staged PCI from 2009 to 2017 at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, were analyzed. Patients with cardiogenic shock, in‐hospital staged PCI, staged cardiac surgery, and multiple staged PCIs were excluded. The primary end point was all‐cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction and urgent premature non–target‐vessel PCI. Of 8657 patients with ACS, staged revascularization was planned in 1764 patients, of whom 1432 patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. At 1 year, there were no significant differences in the crude or adjusted rates of the primary end point (7.8% early versus 10.8% late, hazard ratio [HR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.47–1.10], P=0.129; adjusted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.50–1.28], P=0.346) and its individual components (all‐cause death: 1.5% versus 2.9%, HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.20–1.33], P=0.170; adjusted HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.23–1.67], P=0.343; recurrent myocardial infarction: 4.2% versus 4.4%, HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.475–1.10], P=0.924; adjusted HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.53–2.01], P=0.935; non–target‐vessel PCI, 3.9% versus 5.7%, HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.53–1.80], P=0.928; adjusted HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.61–2.34], P=0.609).

Conclusions

In this single‐center cohort study of patients with ACS scheduled to undergo staged PCI after hospital discharge, early (<4 weeks) versus late (≥4 weeks) staged PCI was associated with a similar rate of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year follow‐up.

Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02241291.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Economic evaluation of complete revascularization versus stress echocardiography-guided revascularization in the STEACS with multivessel disease

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Economic studies may help decision making in the management of multivessel disease in the setting of myocardial infarction. We sought to perform an economic evaluation of CROSS-AMI (Complete Revascularization or Stress Echocardiography in Patients With Multivessel Disease and ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction) randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

We performed a cost minimization analysis for the strategies (complete angiographic revascularization [ComR] and selective stress echocardiography-guided revascularization [SelR]) compared in the CROSS-AMI clinical trial (N=306), attributable the initial hospitalization and readmissions during the first year of follow-up, using current rates for health services provided by our health system.

RESULTS

The index hospitalization costs were higher in the ComR group than in SelR arm (19 657.9±6236.8 € vs 14 038.7±4958.5 €; P <.001). There were no differences in the costs of the first year of follow-up rehospitalizations between both groups for (ComR 2423.5±4568.0 vs SelR 2653.9±5709.1; P=.697). Total cost was 22 081.3±7505.6 for the ComR arm and 16 692.6±7669.9 for the SelR group (P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the CROSS-AMI trial, the initial extra economic costs of the ComR versus SelR were not offset by significant savings during follow-up. SelR seems to be more efficient than ComR in patients with ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease treated by emergent angioplasty. Study registred at ClinicalTrial.gov (Identifier: NCT01179126).

STEMI and Multivessel Disease: Medical Therapy Amplifies the Benefit of Complete Myocardial Revascularisation

BACKGROUND

Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel disease (MVD) may be treated with different revascularisation strategies. However, the potential predictors of outcomes on top of different revascularisation strategies are poorly studied. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of two different revascularisation strategies and the potential impact of medical therapy.

METHODS

Using a propensity score approach, the impact of two treatment strategies was analysed -staged non-culprit revascularisation group vs culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) group -- on a composite outcome of cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction, and repeated revascularisation. Moreover, models were further adjusted for medication at discharge.

RESULTS

Among 1,385 STEMI patients treated with primary PCI, a subgroup of 433 with MVD was analysed. At the median follow-up of 41 (IQR, 21-65) months, after propensity-score adjustment, the multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that the staged non-culprit revascularisation group was associated with a lower composite endpoint (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.82; p=0.01), lower CVD (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.14-0.82; p=0.02), and lower all-cause death (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.86; p=0.02). Use of renin-angiotensin inhibitors was associated with lower CVD (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.95; p=0.03), and both renin-angiotensin inhibitors (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.86; p=0.01) and beta blockers (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.79; p=0.01) were associated with lower all-cause death.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-word STEMI population with multivessel disease, staged non-culprit revascularisation was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality compared with a culprit-only PCI strategy. However, both revascularisation and medical therapy played a role in the improvement of mortality outcomes. Medical therapy amplified the benefit of myocardial revascularisation.

Timing of Nonculprit Percutaneous Coronary Intervention after ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

INTRODUCTION

Complete revascularization of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD) has recently shown to reduce risk of adverse cardiovascular events, including cardiovascular death. Optimal timing of revascularization of nonculprit lesions remains controversial. We aimed to measure cardiac outcomes related to duration between primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) of the culprit lesion and staged PCI (sPCI) of nonculprit lesions.

METHODS

From a prospectively collected consecutive registry of 3,002 patients treated for STEMI by pPCI, 1,555 patients with MVD requiring sPCI were identified. Patients were placed into quartiles of duration to sPCI: 0-7 days (Q1), 7-22 days (Q2), 22-42 days (Q3), >42 days (Q4), excluding those who had complete revascularization at the index event. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and coronary artery bypass surgery. Cox regression and propensity score matching were performed correcting for confounding factors.

RESULTS

The average age at presentation was 65.7 ± 11.5 years. 333 were female (21.4%). Mean time between pPCI and sPCI was 28.3 days (±24.8). Rates of MACE were Q1 - 16.5%, Q2 - 21.2%, Q3 - 25.8%, and Q4 - 30.1% (log-rank <0.001). Following regression analysis, sPCI remained an independent risk factor for MACE (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.226 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.129-1.331, p < 0.001]). There was no association between the time interval up to sPCI with all-cause death (HR = 1.022 [95% CI: 0.925-1.129, p = 0.671]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with MVD are at increased risk of experiencing MACE after revascularization of nonculprit vessels with increasing time delay between pPCI and sPCI.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Same-Sitting and Staged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Non-Culprit Artery for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Coronary Disease

Recent trials and meta-analysis have indicated that complete revascularization (CR) of multivessel coronary disease is beneficial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) compared to culprit-only intervention. However, the optimal timing of CR remains unclear. We aimed to analyze the optimal timing of CR in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease by performing an updated network meta-analysis using the recent largest randomized controlled trial. PUBMED and EMBASE were searched through October 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing CR and culprit-only revascularization. A random-effect network meta-analysis comparing three arms (same-sitting [during the index procedure] CR versus staged CR versus culprit-only) and 4 arms (same-sitting CR versus staged CR [in-hospital] versus staged CR [out-hospital] versus culprit-only) were performed. Eleven studies with a total of 7,015 patients were included in our analysis. There was no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.05), cardiovascular death (HR 0.69, 95%CI 0.35-1.33), myocardial infarction (HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.37-1.16), and revascularization (HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.70-1.58) between same-sitting CR and staged CR. When staged CR was further divided into staged CR during the hospitalization and after discharge, there was no significant difference in these outcomes between staged CR (in-hospital) and staged CR (out-hospital). In conclusion, in patients with multivessel disease presenting with STEMI, complete revascularization at any timing, including same-sitting, staged in-hospital, and staged out-hospital, may have similar benefits.