Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction: Rationale and Design of the REVIVED-BCIS2 Trial: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

Impact of Anatomical and Viability-Guided Completeness of Revascularization on Clinical Outcomes in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

Complete revascularization of coronary artery disease has been linked to improved outcomes in patients with preserved left ventricular (LV) function.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to identify the impact of complete revascularization in patients with severe LV dysfunction.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the REVIVED-BCIS2 (Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction) trial were eligible if baseline/procedural angiograms and viability studies were available for analysis by independent core laboratories. Anatomical and viability-guided completeness of revascularization were measured by the coronary and myocardial revascularization indices (RIcoro and RImyo), respectively, where RIcoro = (change in British Cardiovascular Intervention Society Jeopardy score [BCIS-JS]) / (baseline BCIS-JS) and RImyo= (number of revascularized viable segments) / (number of viable segments supplied by diseased vessels). The percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) group was classified as having complete or incomplete revascularization by median RIcoro and RImyo. The primary outcome was death or hospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

Of 700 randomized patients, 670 were included. The baseline BCIS-JS and SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) scores were 8 (Q1-Q3: 6-10) and 22 (Q1-Q3: 15-29), respectively. In those patients assigned to PCI, median RIcoro and RImyo values were 67% and 85%, respectively. Compared with the group assigned to optimal medical therapy alone, there was no difference in the likelihood of the primary outcome in those patients receiving complete anatomical or viability-guided revascularization (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.62-1.32; and HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.66-1.35, respectively). A sensitivity analysis by residual SYNTAX score showed no association with outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe LV dysfunction, neither complete anatomical nor viability-guided revascularization was associated with improved event-free survival compared with incomplete revascularization or treatment with medical therapy alone. (Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction) [REVIVED-BCIS2]; NCT01920048).

Preprocedural assessment of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Rationale and design of the EASE-IT CT registry

BACKGROUND

Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is the standard for pre-procedural assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, it requires hospitalization and can be associated with complications. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) may be a viable alternative to rule out prognostically relevant CAD.

METHODS

The EASE-IT CT Registry is an investigator-initiated, prospective, observational, multicentre pilot registry involving patients aged ≥75 years with severe aortic stenosis (AS) intended to implant a transcatheter heart valve (THV) of the SAPIEN family. A total of 150 patients will be recruited from four sites in Germany and Austria. The registry will consist of two prospective cohorts: the investigational CTA-only cohort and the CTA + ICA control cohort. The CTA-only cohort will enrol 100 patients in whom significant (≥50%) left main (LM) and/or proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) stenosis are ruled out on CTA. The CTA + ICA control cohort will enrol 50 patients who have undergone both CTA and ICA before TAVI and in whom ≥50% LM/proximal LAD stenosis has been ruled out by CTA. Three composite endpoints will be assessed at 3 months post-TAVI: CAD-specific endpoints, VARC-3-defined device success and early safety.

CONCLUSION

The EASE-IT CT Registry evaluates whether TAVI can be carried out safely without performing ICA if prognostically relevant CAD of the LM/proximal LAD is ruled out with CTA. If so, the omission of ICA would help streamline the pre-procedural workup of TAVI patients.

A Narrative Review of Revascularization in Chronic Coronary Syndrome/Disease: Concepts and Misconceptions

Ischemic heart disease represents a significant global burden of morbidity and mortality. While revascularization strategies are well defined in acute settings, there are uncertainties regarding chronic coronary artery disease treatment. Recent trials have raised doubts about the necessity of revascularization for "stable", chronic coronary syndromes or disease, leading to a shift towards a more conservative approach. However, the issue remains far from settled. In this narrative review, we offer a summary of the most pertinent evidence regarding revascularization for chronic coronary disease, while reflecting on less-often-discussed details of major clinical trials. The cumulative evidence available indicates that there can be a prognostic benefit from revascularization in chronic coronary syndrome patients, provided there is significant ischemia, as demonstrated by either imaging or coronary physiology. Trials that have effectively met this criterion consistently demonstrate a reduction in rates of spontaneous myocardial infarction, which holds both prognostic and clinical significance. The prognostic benefit of revascularization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction remains especially problematic, with a single contemporary trial favouring surgical revascularization. The very recent publication of a trial focused on revascularizing non-flow-limiting "vulnerable" plaques adds further complexity to the field. The ongoing debates surrounding revascularization in chronic coronary syndromes emphasize the importance of personalized strategies. Revascularization, added to the foundational pillar of medical therapy, should be considered, taking into account symptoms, patient preferences, coronary anatomy and physiology, ischemia tests and intra-coronary imaging.

Selecting the appropriate patients for coronary artery bypass grafting in ischemic cardiomyopathy-importance of myocardial viability

Patients who undergo coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in ischemic cardiomyopathy have a survival advantage over medical therapy at 10 years. The survival advantage of CABG over medical therapy is due to its ability to reduce future myocardial infarction, and by conferring electrical stability. The presence of myocardial viability does not provide a differential survival advantage for CABG over medical therapy. Presence of angina and inducible ischemia are also less predictive of outcome. Moreover, CABG is associated with significant early mortality. Hence, careful patient selection is more important for reducing the early mortality and improving the long-term outcome than relying on results of myocardial viability. Younger patients with good exercise tolerance benefit the most, while patients who are frail and patients with renal dysfunction and dysfunctional right ventricle seem to have very high operative mortality. Elderly patients, because of poor life expectancy, do not benefit from CABG, but the age cutoff is not clear. Patients also need to have revascularizable targets, but this decision is often based on experience of the surgical team and heart team discussion. These recommendations are irrespective of the myocardial viability tests. Optimal medical treatment remains the cornerstone for management of ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Most UK cardiovascular disease trial protocols feature criteria that exclude ethnic minority participants: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

We systematically reviewed UK cardiovascular disease (CVD) randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols to identify the proportion featuring eligibility criteria that may disproportionately exclude ethnic minority (EM) participants.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, January 2014-June 2022, to identify UK CVD RCT protocols. We extracted nonclinical eligibility criteria from trial protocols and inductively categorized the trials by their language, consent, and broad (ambiguous) criteria. Findings are narratively reported.

RESULTS

Of the seventy included RCT protocols, most (87.1%; 61/70) mentioned consent within the eligibility criteria, with more than two-thirds (68.9%; 42/61) indicating a requirement for 'written' consent. Alternative consent pathways that can aid EM participation were absent. English language requirement was present in 22.9% (16/70) of the studies and 37.1% (26/70) featured broad criteria that are open to interpretation and subject to recruiter bias. Only 4.3% (3/70) protocols mentioned the provision of translation services.

CONCLUSION

Most UK CVD trial protocols feature eligibility criteria that potentially exclude EM groups. Trial eligibility criteria must be situated within a larger inclusive recruitment framework, where ethnicity is considered alongside other intersecting and disadvantaging identities.

A review of the conservative versus invasive management of ischemic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Heart failure is increasing in terms of prevalence, morbidity, and mortality rates. Clinical trials and studies are focusing on heart failure as it is the destiny end-stage for several cardiovascular disorders. Recently, medical therapy has dramatically progressed with novel classes of medicines providing better quality of life and survival outcomes. However, heart failure remains a heavy impactful factor on societies and populations. Current guidelines from the American and European cardiac societies are not uniform with respect to the class and level of treatment recommendations for coronary artery disease patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The discrepancy among international recommendations, stemming from the lack of evidence from adequately powered randomized trials, challenges physicians in choosing the optimal strategy. Hybrid therapy including optimal medical therapy with revascularization strategies are commonly used for the management of ischemic heart failure. Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) has proved its efficacy on improving long term outcome and prognosis while no large randomized clinical trials for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are still available. Regardless of the lack of data and recommendations, the trends of performing PCI in ischemic heart failure prevailed over CABG whereas lesion complexity, chronic total occlusion and complete revascularization achievement are limiting factors. Lastly, regenerative medicine seems a promising approach for advanced heart failure enhancing cardiomyocytes proliferation, reverse remodeling, scar size reduction and cardiac function restoration.

Viability and Outcomes With Revascularization or Medical Therapy in Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the REVIVED-BCIS2 Trial

Importance

In the Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction (REVIVED-BCIS2) trial, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not improve outcomes for patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Whether myocardial viability testing had prognostic utility for these patients or identified a subpopulation who may benefit from PCI remained unclear.

Objective

To determine the effect of the extent of viable and nonviable myocardium on the effectiveness of PCI, prognosis, and improvement in left ventricular function.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Prospective open-label randomized clinical trial recruiting between August 28, 2013, and March 19, 2020, with a median follow-up of 3.4 years (IQR, 2.3-5.0 years). A total of 40 secondary and tertiary care centers in the United Kingdom were included. Of 700 randomly assigned patients, 610 with left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 35%, extensive coronary artery disease, and evidence of viability in at least 4 myocardial segments that were dysfunctional at rest and who underwent blinded core laboratory viability characterization were included. Data analysis was conducted from March 31, 2022, to May 1, 2023.

Intervention

Percutaneous coronary intervention in addition to optimal medical therapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Blinded core laboratory analysis was performed of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging scans and dobutamine stress echocardiograms to quantify the extent of viable and nonviable myocardium, expressed as an absolute percentage of left ventricular mass. The primary outcome of this subgroup analysis was the composite of all-cause death or hospitalization for heart failure. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and improved left ventricular function at 6 months.

Results

The mean (SD) age of the participants was 69.3 (9.0) years. In the PCI group, 258 (87%) were male, and in the optimal medical therapy group, 277 (88%) were male. The primary outcome occurred in 107 of 295 participants assigned to PCI and 114 of 315 participants assigned to optimal medical therapy alone. There was no interaction between the extent of viable or nonviable myocardium and the effect of PCI on the primary or any secondary outcome. Across the study population, the extent of viable myocardium was not associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio per 10% increase, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.04) or any secondary outcome. The extent of nonviable myocardium was associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and improvement in left ventricular function.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that viability testing does not identify patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who benefit from PCI. The extent of nonviable myocardium, but not the extent of viable myocardium, is associated with event-free survival and likelihood of improvement of left ventricular function.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01920048.

Monocyte to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio predicts poor outcomes in ischaemic heart failure patients combined with diabetes: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of ischaemic heart failure (HF) continues to increase. Diabetes mellitus (DM) concomitant with ischaemic HF increases the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). As a promising predictor for cardiovascular diseases, the predictive value of the monocyte to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (MHR) for MACE in the ischaemic HF with DM cohort has never been investigated before.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the MHR as a predictor for MACE in ischaemic HF patients with DM who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

This observational study enrolled 1049 patients with ischaemic HF and DM undergoing PCI from June 2017 to June 2019. The baseline data were collected. MACEs, including all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and any revascularization, were recorded within the 36-month follow-up. The characteristics and incidence of MACE were analysed in four groups stratified by the quartiles of MHR. The hazard ratio for MACE was analysed with Cox regression models. The incidence of MACE in the four groups was evaluated by Kaplan‒Meier survival analysis. Restricted cubic spline analysis was performed to determine the nonlinear correlation between the MHR and MACE.

RESULTS

After the 36-month follow-up, 407 patients (38.8%) experienced MACEs. The incidence of MACE was significantly higher among patients in the upper MHR quartile than among those in the lower MHR quartiles (23.4% vs. 36.0% vs. 41.4% and 54.6%; P < 0.001, respectively), which was consistent with the Kaplan‒Meier survival analyses (P < 0.0001). A multivariate Cox regression model showed that the MHR was an independent risk factor for MACE after variables were adjusted (adjusted HR: 2.11; 95% CI 1.47-3.03; P < 0.001). Its predictive effects on MACE showed no interaction with hypercholesterolemia (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The MHR was a significant and independent predictor of MACEs in ischaemic HF patients with DM undergoing PCI.

STICH3C: Rationale and Study Protocol

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the recommended mode of revascularization in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction (iLVSD) and multivessel disease. However, contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes have improved with the integration of novel technologies and refinement of revascularization strategies, and PCI is often used in clinical practice in this population. There is a lack of evidence from randomized trials comparing contemporary state-of-the-art PCI versus CABG for the treatment of iLVSD and multivessel disease. This was the impetus for the STICH3C trial (Canadian CABG or PCI in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy), described here.

METHODS

The STICH3C trial is a prospective, unblinded, international, multicenter trial with an expected sample size of 754 participants from ≈45 centers. Patients with multivessel/left main coronary artery disease and iLVSD with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% considered by the local Heart Team appropriate for and amenable to revascularization by both modes of revascularization will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to state-of-the-art PCI or CABG.

RESULTS

The primary end point is the composite of death from any cause, stroke, spontaneous myocardial infarction, urgent repeat revascularization, or heart failure readmission, summarized as a time-to-event outcome. The key hierarchical end point is time to death and frequency of hospitalizations for heart failure. The key safety outcome is a composite of major adverse events. Disease-specific quality-of-life and health economics measures will be compared between groups. Participants will be followed for a median of 5 years, with a minimum follow-up of 4 years.

CONCLUSIONS

STICH3C will directly inform patients, clinicians, and international practice guidelines about the efficacy and safety of CABG versus PCI in patients with iLVSD. The results will provide novel and broad evidence, including clinical events, health status, and economic assessments, to guide care for patients with iLVSD and severe coronary artery disease.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/; Unique identifier: NCT05427370.

The Role of Positron Emission Tomography in Advancing the Understanding of the Pathogenesis of Heart and Vascular Diseases

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. For developing new therapies, a better understanding of the underlying pathology is required. Historically, such insights have been primarily derived from pathological studies. In the 21st century, thanks to the advent of cardiovascular positron emission tomography (PET), which depicts the presence and activity of pathophysiological processes, it is now feasible to assess disease activity in vivo. By targeting distinct biological pathways, PET elucidates the activity of the processes which drive disease progression, adverse outcomes or, on the contrary, those that can be considered as a healing response. Given the insights provided by PET, this non-invasive imaging technology lends itself to the development of new therapies, providing a hope for the emergence of strategies that could have a profound impact on patient outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss recent advances in cardiovascular PET imaging which have greatly advanced our understanding of atherosclerosis, ischemia, infection, adverse myocardial remodeling and degenerative valvular heart disease.

Metabolic Score for Insulin Resistance (METS-IR) Predicts Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the association between metabolic score for insulin resistance (METS-IR) and adverse cardiovascular events in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

METS-IR was calculated using the following formula: ln[(2 × fasting plasma glucose (mg/dL) + fasting triglyceride (mg/dL)] × body mass index (kg/m2)/(ln[high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mg/dL)]). Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) were defined as the composite outcome of nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and rehospitalization for heart failure. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between METS-IR and adverse outcomes. The predictive value of METS-IR was evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC), continuous net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI).

Results

The incidence of MACEs increased with METS-IR tertiles at a 3‑year follow‑up. Kaplan‒Meier curves showed a significant difference in event-free survival probability between METS-IR tertiles (P<0.05). Multivariate Cox hazard regression analysis adjusting for multiple confounding factors showed that when comparing the highest and lowest METS-IR tertiles, the hazard ratio was 1.886 (95% CI:1.613-2.204; P<0.001). Adding METS-IR to the established risk model had an incremental effect on the predicted value of MACEs (AUC=0.637, 95% CI:0.605-0.670, P<0.001; NRI=0.191, P<0.001; IDI=0.028, P<0.001).

Conclusion

METS-IR, a simple score of insulin resistance, predicts the occurrence of MACEs in patients with ICM and T2DM, independent of known cardiovascular risk factors. These results suggest that METS-IR may be a useful marker for risk stratification and prognosis in patients with ICM and T2DM.

Predicting left ventricular functional recovery in ischaemic cardiomyopathy: needs and challenges

Left ventricular (LV) systolic function is an essential parameter for the evaluation of patients with ischaemic heart disease, and therapeutic choices are significantly driven by LV ejection fraction (LVEF) in the early stage of the disease and during follow-up. After an acute coronary syndrome, ventricular dysfunction may be reversible when caused by transient myocardial stunning. Therefore, the identification of clinical, laboratory, and instrumental predictors of improvement in LV systolic function (in addition to LVEF) is essential for an adequate prognostic stratification. In the setting of chronic ischaemic heart disease, there is no evidence that an improvement in LV systolic function is invariably associated with a better prognosis and LVEF is only one of many parameters that should be considered for the risk stratification. This state-of-the-art review will critically analyse the scientific evidence regarding known predictors of LVEF recovery, trying to elucidate their pathophysiological principles and clinical value.

Coronary Physiology: Modern Concepts for the Guidance of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions and Medical Therapy

Recent evidence on ischemia, rather than coronary artery disease (CAD), representing a major determinant of outcomes, has led to a progressive shift in the management of patients with ischemic heart disease. According to most recent guidelines, myocardial revascularization strategies based on anatomical findings should be progressively abandoned in favor of functional criteria for the guidance of PCI. Thus, emerging importance has been assigned to the assessment of coronary physiology in order to determine the ischemic significance of coronary stenoses. However, despite several indexes and tools that have been developed so far, the existence of technical and clinical conditions potentially biasing the functional evaluation of the coronary tree still cause debates regarding the strategy of choice. The present review provides an overview of the available methods and the most recent acquirements for the invasive assessment of ischemia, focusing on the most widely available indexes, fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instant-wave free ratio (iFR), in addition to emerging examples, as new approaches to coronary flow reserve (CFR) and microvascular resistance, aiming at promoting the knowledge and application of those "full physiology" principles, which are generally advocated to allow a tailored treatment and the achievement of the largest prognostic benefits.

Coronary Wave Intensity Analysis as an Invasive and Vessel-Specific Index of Myocardial Viability

BACKGROUND

Coronary angiography and viability testing are the cornerstones of diagnosing and managing ischemic cardiomyopathy. At present, no single test serves both needs. Coronary wave intensity analysis interrogates both contractility and microvascular physiology of the subtended myocardium and therefore has the potential to fulfil the goal of completely assessing coronary physiology and myocardial viability in a single procedure. We hypothesized that coronary wave intensity analysis measured during coronary angiography would predict viability with a similar accuracy to late-gadolinium-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

METHODS

Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and extensive coronary disease were enrolled. Coronary wave intensity analysis was assessed during cardiac catheterization at rest, during adenosine-induced hyperemia, and during low-dose dobutamine stress using a dual pressure-Doppler sensing coronary guidewire. Scar burden was assessed with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Regional left ventricular function was assessed at baseline and 6-month follow-up after optimization of medical-therapy±revascularization, using transthoracic echocardiography. The primary outcome was myocardial viability, determined by the retrospective observation of functional recovery.

RESULTS

Forty participants underwent baseline physiology, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and echocardiography, and 30 had echocardiography at 6 months; 21/42 territories were viable on follow-up echocardiography. Resting backward compression wave energy was significantly greater in viable than in nonviable territories (-5240±3772 versus -1873±1605 W m-2 s-1, P<0.001), and had comparable accuracy to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for predicting viability (area under the curve 0.812 versus 0.757, P=0.649); a threshold of -2500 W m-2 s-1 had 86% sensitivity and 76% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Backward compression wave energy has accuracy similar to that of late-gadolinium-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the prediction of viability. Coronary wave intensity analysis has the potential to streamline the management of ischemic cardiomyopathy, in a manner analogous to the effect of fractional flow reserve on the management of stable angina.

Is the world ready for the STICH 3.0 trial?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is responsible for >50% of heart failures cases. Patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (iLVSD) are known to have poorer outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared to patients with a normal ejection fraction. Nevertheless, <1% of patients in coronary revascularization trials to date had iLVSD. The purpose of this review is to describe coronary revascularization modalities in patients with iLVSD and highlight the need for randomized controlled trial evidence comparing these treatments in this patient population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Network meta-analytic findings of observational studies suggest that PCI is associated with higher rates of mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization but not stroke compared to CABG in iLVSD. In recent years, outcomes for patients undergoing PCI have improved as a result of advances in technologies and techniques.

SUMMARY

The optimal coronary revascularization modality in patients with iLVSD remains unknown. In observational studies, CABG appears superior to PCI; however, direct randomized evidence is absent and developments in PCI techniques have improved post-PCI outcomes in recent years. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure 3.0 consortium of trials will seek to address the clinical equipoise in coronary revascularization in patients with iLVSD.

Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Whether revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve event-free survival and left ventricular function in patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction, as compared with optimal medical therapy (i.e., individually adjusted pharmacologic and device therapy for heart failure) alone, is unknown.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, extensive coronary artery disease amenable to PCI, and demonstrable myocardial viability to a strategy of either PCI plus optimal medical therapy (PCI group) or optimal medical therapy alone (optimal-medical-therapy group). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. Major secondary outcomes were left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 and 12 months and quality-of-life scores.

RESULTS

A total of 700 patients underwent randomization - 347 were assigned to the PCI group and 353 to the optimal-medical-therapy group. Over a median of 41 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 129 patients (37.2%) in the PCI group and in 134 patients (38.0%) in the optimal-medical-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.27; P = 0.96). The left ventricular ejection fraction was similar in the two groups at 6 months (mean difference, -1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.7 to 0.5) and at 12 months (mean difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.7 to 3.4). Quality-of-life scores at 6 and 12 months appeared to favor the PCI group, but the difference had diminished at 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction who received optimal medical therapy, revascularization by PCI did not result in a lower incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program; REVIVED-BCIS2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920048.).

Deferral of Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction Based on Physiological Assessment: Impact on Long-Term Survival

Background Deferring revascularization in patients with nonsignificant stenoses based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with favorable clinical outcomes up to 15 years. Whether this holds true in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction is unclear. We aimed to investigate whether FFR provides adjunctive clinical benefit compared with coronary angiography in deferring revascularization of patients with intermediate coronary stenoses and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Methods and Results Consecutive patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤50%) undergoing coronary angiography between 2002 and 2010 were screened. We included patients with at least 1 intermediate coronary stenosis (diameter stenosis ≥40%) in whom revascularization was deferred based either on angiography plus FFR (FFR guided) or angiography alone (angiography guided). The primary end point was the cumulative incidence of all-cause death at 10 years. The secondary end point (incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events) was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, any revascularization, and stroke. A total of 840 patients were included (206 in the FFR-guided group and 634 in the angiography-guided group). Median follow-up was 7 years (interquartile range, 3.22-11.08 years). After 1:1 propensity-score matching, baseline characteristics between the 2 groups were similar. All-cause death was significantly lower in the FFR-guided group compared with the angiography-guided group (94 [45.6%] versus 119 [57.8%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.49-0.85]; P<0.01). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was lower in the FFR-guided group (123 [59.7%] versus 139 [67.5%]; HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59-0.95]; P=0.02). Conclusions In patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, deferring revascularization of intermediate coronary stenoses based on FFR is associated with a lower incidence of death and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events at 10 years.

The British Cardiovascular Society and clinical studies in ischaemic heart disease: from RITA to ORBITA, and beyond

In this article, we provide a historical view of key aspects of British Cardiovascular Society (BCS) influence in clinical trials of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) followed by key research and developments, notable publications and future perspectives. We discuss the role of the BCS and its members. The scope of this article covers clinical trials in stable IHD and acute coronary syndromes, including interventions relating to diagnosis, treatment and management. We discuss the role of the BCS in supporting the original RITA trials. We highlight the changing face of angina and its management providing contemporary and future insights into microvascular disease, ischaemic symptoms with no obstructive coronary arteries and, relatedly, myocardial infarction with no obstructive coronary arteries. The article is presented as a brief overview of the BCS in IHD research, relationships with stakeholders, patient and public involvement and clinical trials from the perspective of past, present and future possibilities.

Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Coronary Artery Disease

Background

In patients with both heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and coronary artery disease (CAD), whether adopting an initial invasive strategy benefits better in clinical outcomes compared with those who received an initial conservative strategy remains inconclusive.

Methods

With data from the heart failure (HF) cohort study, we analyzed patients who had HFpEF and CAD amenable to the invasive intervention using propensity score matching of 1:1 ratio to compare the initial invasive strategy and the initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone. The primary outcome was the composite endpoints of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and the secondary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization.

Results

Of 1,718 patients, 706 were treated with the invasive strategy and 1,012 with the conservative strategy initially. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a matched cohort of 1,320 patients receiving the invasive intervention (660 patients) or the medical therapy alone (660 patients). With a follow-up of 5 years, 378 (57.3%) in the invasive-strategy group and 403 (61.1%) in the conservative-strategy group reached the primary endpoint, and there was no significant difference in the rate of the primary endpoint (P = 0.162). The initial invasive strategy only improved the secondary outcome of cardiovascular hospitalization (P = 0.035). Also, the multivariable Cox regression model revealed that antiplatelet therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB), or statin prescription was associated with a decreased risk of the primary outcome.

Conclusion

In this well-profiled, propensity-matched cohort of patients with HFpEF and CAD, the addition of invasive intervention to medical therapy did not improve the long-term composite of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization.

Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Medicine in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) demonstrated that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) reduced all-cause mortality rates out to 10 years compared with medical therapy alone (MED) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular function (ejection fraction ≤35%). We examined the economic implications of these results.

METHODS

We used a decision-analytic patient-level simulation model to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of CABG and MED using patient-level resource use and clinical data collected in the STICH trial. Patient-level costs were calculated by applying externally derived US cost weights to resource use counts during trial follow-up. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective.

RESULTS

For the CABG arm, we estimated 6.53 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, 5.70-7.53) and a lifetime cost of $140 059 (95% CI, $106 401 to $180 992). For the MED arm, the corresponding estimates were 5.52 (95% CI, 5.06-6.09) quality-adjusted life-years and $74 894 lifetime cost (95% CI, $58 372 to $93 541). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CABG compared with MED was $63 989 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, CABG was found to be economically favorable compared with MED in 87% of microsimulations.

CONCLUSIONS

In the STICH trial, in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular function, CABG was economically attractive relative to MED at current benchmarks for value in the United States.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT00023595.

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

Myocardial viability testing: all STICHed up, or about to be REVIVED?

Patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction frequently undergo myocardial viability testing. The historical model presumes that those who have extensive areas of dysfunctional-yet-viable myocardium derive particular benefit from revascularization, whilst those without extensive viability do not. These suppositions rely on the theory of hibernation and are based on data of low quality: taking a dogmatic approach may therefore lead to patients being refused appropriate, prognostically important treatment. Recent data from a sub-study of the randomized STICH trial challenges these historical concepts, as the volume of viable myocardium failed to predict the effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting. Should the Heart Team now abandon viability testing, or are new paradigms needed in the way we interpret viability? This state-of-the-art review critically examines the evidence base for viability testing, focusing in particular on the presumed interactions between viability, functional recovery, revascularization and prognosis which underly the traditional model. We consider whether viability should relate solely to dysfunctional myocardium or be considered more broadly and explore wider uses of viability testingoutside of revascularization decision-making. Finally, we look forward to ongoing and future randomized trials, which will shape evidence-based clinical practice in the future.

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.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Coronary Artery Diseases and Moderate Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Purpose

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are two revascularization strategies for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular dysfunction. However, the comparisons of effectiveness between the two strategies are insufficient. This study is aimed to compare the effectiveness between PCI and CABG among patients with moderate left ventricular dysfunction.

Patients and Methods

A total of 1487 CAD patients with moderate reduced ejection fraction (36%≤EF≤40%), who underwent either PCI or CABG, were enrolled in a real-world cohort study (No. ChiCTR2100044378). Clinical outcomes included short- and long-term all-cause mortality, rates of heart failure (HF) hospitalization and repeat revascularization. Propensity score matching was used to balance the two cohorts.

Results

PCI was associated with lower 30-day mortality rate (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.35 [0.15–0.83]; P=0.02). At a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, PCI and CABG had similar all-cause death (HR [95% CI], 0.82 [0.56–1.20]; P=0.30) and heart failure (HF) hospitalization (HR [95% CI], 0.93 [0.54–1.60]; P=0.79), but PCI had higher risk of repeat revascularization (HR [95% CI], 8.62 [3.67–20.23]; P<0.001). Improvement in EF measured at 3 months later after revascularization was also similar between PCI and CABG (P for interaction=0.87).

Conclusion

CAD patients with moderate reduced EF who had PCI had lower short-term mortality rate but higher risk of repeat revascularization during follow-up than patients who had CABG. PCI showed comparable long-term survival, HF hospitalization risk, and EF improvement.

Long-term mortality in patients with ischaemic heart failure revascularized with coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR)

Aims 

To compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for treatment of patients with heart failure due to ischaemic heart disease.

Methods and results 

We analysed all-cause mortality following CABG or PCI in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and multivessel disease (coronary artery stenosis >50% in ≥2 vessels or left main) who underwent coronary angiography between 2000 and 2018 in Sweden. We used a propensity score-adjusted logistic and Cox proportional-hazards regressions and instrumental variable model to adjust for known and unknown confounders. Multilevel modelling was used to adjust for the clustering of observations in a hierarchical database. In total, 2509 patients (82.9% men) were included; 35.8% had diabetes and 34.7% had a previous myocardial infarction. The mean age was 68.1 ± 9.4 years (47.8% were >70 years old), and 64.9% had three-vessel or left main disease. Primary designated therapy was PCI in 56.2% and CABG in 43.8%. Median follow-up time was 3.9 years (range 1 day to 10 years). There were 1010 deaths. Risk of death was lower after CABG than after PCI [odds ratio (OR) 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41–0.96; P = 0.031]. The risk of death increased linearly with quintiles of hospitals in which PCI was the preferred method for revascularization (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.17–1.38, P  _trend < 0.001).

Conclusion 

In patients with ischaemic heart failure, long-term survival was greater after CABG than after PCI.

Multimodality imaging of myocardial viability: an expert consensus document from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI)

In clinical decision making, myocardial viability is defined as myocardium in acute or chronic coronary artery disease and other conditions with contractile dysfunction but maintained metabolic and electrical function, having the potential to improve dysfunction upon revascularization or other therapy. Several pathophysiological conditions may coexist to explain this phenomenon. Cardiac imaging may allow identification of myocardial viability through different principles, with the purpose of prediction of therapeutic response and selection for treatment. This expert consensus document reviews current insight into the underlying pathophysiology and available methods for assessing viability. In particular the document reviews contemporary viability imaging techniques, including stress echocardiography, single photon emission computed tomography, positron emission tomography, cardiovascular magnetic resonance, and computed tomography and provides clinical recommendations for how to standardize these methods in terms of acquisition and interpretation. Finally, it presents clinical scenarios where viability assessment is clinically useful.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction: insights from the VA CART program

BACKGROUND

Revascularization of ischemic cardiomyopathy by coronary artery bypass grafting has been shown to improve survival among patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, but the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this context is incompletely described. This study sought to evaluate the effect of PCI on mortality and hospitalization among patients with stable coronary artery disease and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis comparing PCI with medical therapy among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy in the Veterans Affairs Health Administration. Patients with angiographic evidence of 1 or more epicardial stenoses amenable to PCI and LVEF ≤35% were included in the analysis. Outcome data were determined by VA and non-VA data sources on mortality and hospital admission.

RESULTS

From 2008 through 2015, a study sample of 4,628 patients was identified, of which 1,322 patients underwent ad hoc PCI. Patients were followed to a maximum of 3 years. Propensity score weighted landmark analysis was used to evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes. The primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the PCI cohort compared with medical therapy (21.6% vs 30.0%, P <.001). The secondary outcome of all-cause rehospitalization or death was also lower in the PCI cohort (76.5% vs 83.8%, P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective analysis of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with coronary artery disease amenable to PCI and LVEF ≤35%, revascularization by PCI was associated with decreased all-cause mortality and decreased all-cause death or rehospitalization.

Coronary revascularisation in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy

Heart failure resulting from ischaemic heart disease is associated with a poor prognosis despite optimal medical treatment. Despite this, patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy have been largely excluded from randomised trials of revascularisation in stable coronary artery disease. Revascularisation has multiple potential mechanisms of benefit, including the reversal of myocardial hibernation, suppression of ventricular arrhythmias and prevention of spontaneous myocardial infarction. Coronary artery bypass grafting is considered the first-line mode of revascularisation in these patients; however, evidence from the Surgical Treatment of Ischaemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial showed a reduction in mortality, though this only became apparent with extended follow-up due to an excess of early adverse events in the surgical arm. There is currently no randomised controlled trial evidence for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy; however, the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial has recently completed recruitment and will address this gap in the evidence. Future directions include (1) clinical trials of revascularisation in patients hospitalised with heart failure, (2) defining the role of viability and ischaemia testing in heart failure, (3) studies to enhance the understanding of the mechanistic effects of revascularisation and (4) generating models to refine pre- and post-revascularisation risk prediction.

Innovative transcatheter procedures for the treatment of heart failure

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) continues to rise over time, with aging of the population and increased survival of incident cases. Major improvements occurred in drug therapy but morbidity and mortality of HF patients remain high. Some non-pharmacologic approaches to HF are already part of standard treatment for HF, including implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). A number of transcatheter treatments and devices have been developed to improve management of valvular heart diseases (VHD), and some of them are being used or tested in specific HF conditions. For example, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to unload the left ventricle in patients with moderate aortic stenosis (AS) and HF or TAVI for severe aortic regurgitation (AR) in patients with LVADs. Similarly, percutaneous mitral valve repair can be used to improve prognosis and quality of life in patients with functional mitral valve regurgitation, and has been proposed as a bridge-to-LVAD or to heart transplant in selected patients. Other devices have been specifically developed for the treatment of chronic HF. In this review we describe the main devices used in the treatment of HF associated with aortic and mitral valve disease, as well as novel transcatheter interventions for chronic HF with different pathophysiologic targets.

Myocardial revascularization in chronic coronary syndromes: does viability matter?

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death worldwide and improving the prognosis and survival of patients with ischemic heart disease remains a priority of cardiovascular specialists. This article will review the principles of myocardial viability, present the noninvasive imaging tests available to clinicians, as well as critically appraise the latest literature on myocardial viability, coronary revascularization and outcome with a final outlook at studies in the pipelines and future evidence in myocardial viability that will be soon available.

Initial Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients With a History of Heart Failure or Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial

BACKGROUND

Whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in the setting of a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when ejection fraction is ≥35% but <45% is unknown.

METHODS

Among 5179 participants randomized into ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), all of whom had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in participants with a history of HF/LVD at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow-up was 3.2 years.

RESULTS

There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline, of whom 177 had HF/LVEF >45%, 28 HF/LVEF 35% to 45%, and 193 LVEF 35% to 45% but no history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly previous myocardial infarction, stroke, and hypertension. Compared with patients without HF/LVD, participants with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest (4-year cumulative incidence rate, 22.7% versus 13.8%; cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, 19.7% versus 12.3%; and all-cause death or HF, 15.0% versus 6.9%). Participants with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% versus 29.3%; difference in 4-year event rate, -12.1% [95% CI, -22.6 to -1.6%]), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% versus 14.6%; difference in 4-year event rate, -1.6% [95% CI, -3.8% to 0.7%]; P interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy-associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for patients with and without previous HF.

CONCLUSIONS

ISCHEMIA participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35% to 45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis-generating. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Complete versus incomplete coronary revascularization: definitions, assessment and outcomes

Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Selected patients with obstructive coronary artery disease benefit from revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Many (but not all) studies have demonstrated increased survival and greater freedom from adverse cardiovascular events after complete revascularization (CR) than after incomplete revascularization (ICR) in patients with multivessel disease. However, achieving CR after PCI or CABG surgery might not be feasible owing to patient comorbidities, anatomical factors, and technical or procedural considerations. These factors also mean that comparisons between CR and ICR are subject to multiple confounders and are difficult to understand or apply to real-world clinical practice. In this Review, we summarize and critically appraise the evidence linking various types of ICR to adverse outcomes in patients with multivessel disease and stable ischaemic heart disease, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, with or without cardiogenic shock. In addition, we provide practical recommendations for revascularization in patients with high-risk multivessel disease to optimize their long-term clinical outcomes and identify areas requiring future clinical investigation.

Independent and cumulative association of clinical and morphological heart failure with long-term outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is a risk factor for adverse post-procedural outcome after revascularization; however, it is unclear how left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and clinical HF symptoms affect percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes. We investigated the characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients with clinical HF or LVSD after PCI.

METHODS

This was a Japanese multicenter registry study of adult patients receiving PCI. Among 4689 consecutive patients who underwent PCI at 15 hospitals from January 2009 to December 2012, we analyzed 2634 (56.2%) with documented left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). They were divided into four groups based on clinical HF (symptoms or HF hospitalization) and LVEF [≥35% and <35% (HF due to LVSD)]. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), comprising all-cause death, acute coronary syndrome, HF hospitalization, performance of coronary artery bypass grafting, and stroke within 2 years after the initial PCI.

RESULTS

Our findings revealed 354 patients (13.4%) with HF (clinical HF, n = 173, 48.9%; LVSD, n = 132, 37.3%; both, n = 49; 13.8%). The incidence of MACE was higher in patients with clinical HF or LVSD, and was largely due to higher non-cardiac death and HF hospitalization. After adjustment, clinical HF (hazard ratio 2.16, 95% confidence interval; 1.49-3.14) and lower LVEF (per 10%, hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval; 0.81-0.99) were independently associated with higher MACE risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical HF and LVSD were independently associated with adverse long-term clinical outcomes, particularly with non-cardiac death and HF readmission, in patients treated with PCI.

Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Worldwide, the burden of heart failure has increased to an estimated 23 million people, and approximately 50% of cases are HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

OBSERVATIONS

Heart failure is a clinical syndrome characterized by dyspnea or exertional limitation due to impairment of ventricular filling or ejection of blood or both. HFrEF occurs when the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is 40% or less and is accompanied by progressive left ventricular dilatation and adverse cardiac remodeling. Assessment for heart failure begins with obtaining a medical history and physical examination. Also central to diagnosis are elevated natriuretic peptides above age- and context-specific thresholds and identification of left ventricular systolic dysfunction with LVEF of 40% or less as measured by echocardiography. Treatment strategies include the use of diuretics to relieve symptoms and application of an expanding armamentarium of disease-modifying drug and device therapies. Unless there are specific contraindications, patients with HFrEF should be treated with a β-blocker and one of an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, or angiotensin receptor blocker as foundational therapy, with addition of a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist in patients with persistent symptoms. Ivabradine and hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate also have a role in the care of certain patients with HFrEF. More recently, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have further improved disease outcomes, significantly reducing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality irrespective of diabetes status, and vericiguat, a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, reduces heart failure hospitalization in high-risk patients with HFrEF. Device therapies may be beneficial in specific subpopulations, such as cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with interventricular dyssynchrony, transcatheter mitral valve repair in patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation, and implantable cardiac defibrillators in patients with more severe left ventricular dysfunction particularly of ischemic etiology.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

HFrEF is a major public health concern with substantial morbidity and mortality. The management of HFrEF has seen significant scientific breakthrough in recent decades, and the ability to alter the natural history of the disease has never been better. Recent developments include SGLT2 inhibitors, vericiguat, and transcatheter mitral valve repair, all of which incrementally improve prognosis beyond foundational neurohormonal therapies. Disease morbidity and mortality remain high, with a 5-year survival rate of 25% after hospitalization for HFrEF.