Survival After Varying Revascularization Strategies in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Coronary bypass surgery for multivessel disease after percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes: why, for whom, how early?

Multivessel coronary artery disease is present in ∼50% of patients with acute coronary syndrome and, compared with single-vessel disease, entails a higher risk of new ischaemic events and a worse prognosis. Randomized controlled trials have shown the superiority of 'complete revascularization' over culprit lesion-only treatment. Trials, however, only included patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and evidence regarding complete revascularization with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery after culprit lesion-only PCI ('hybrid revascularization') is lacking. The CABG after PCI is an open, non-negligible therapeutic option, for patients with non-culprit left main and/or left anterior descending coronary artery disease where evidence in chronic coronary syndrome patients points in several cases to a preference of CABG over PCI. This valuable but poorly studied 'PCI first-CABG later' option presents, however, relevant challenges, mostly in the need of interrupting post-stenting dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for surgery to prevent excess bleeding. Depending on patients' clinical characteristics and coronary anatomical features, either deferring surgery after a safe interruption of DAPT or bridging DAPT interruption with intravenous short-acting antithrombotic agents appears to be a suitable option. Off-pump minimally invasive surgical revascularization, associated with less operative bleeding than open-chest surgery, may be an adjunctive strategy when revascularization cannot be safely deferred and DAPT is not interrupted. Here, the rationale, patient selection, optimal timing, and adjunctive strategies are reviewed for an ideal approach to hybrid revascularization in post-acute coronary syndrome patients to support physicians' choices in a case-by-case patient-tailored approach.

Infarct-related artery only revascularization versus multi-vessel revascularization for patients with Killip I-IV acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularization strategy for non-culprit vessels is still up for debate nowadays, particularly when it comes to individuals with different Killip classes. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate whether multivessel revascularization, as compared with infarct-related artery (IRA) alone revascularization, improves long-term prognosis in patients who have experienced an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and have multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data from 646 patients who presented with AMI and multivessel CAD at Beijing Chaoyang hospital between November 2014 and November 2020. Based on various revascularization strategies, patients were categorised into two groups: IRA-only revascularization (n = 416) and multivessel revascularization (n = 230). The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

In the following 60.6 months (60.6 ± 23.9), the primary endpoint occurred in 3% of the multivessel revascularization group versus 9.6% in the IRA-only revascularization group (HR 0.284, CI 0.120-0.669, p = 0.002). For the Killip I-II patients (n = 533), the primary endpoint occurred in 2.6% of the multivessel revascularization group versus 9.5% in the IRA-only revascularization group (HR 0.236, CI 0.083-0.667, p = 0.003). For Killip III-IV patients (n = 113), there was no significance differences in the primary endpoint. After using the inverse probability weighted method, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Multivessel revascularization significantly reduced the incidence of cardiovascular death for patients presenting with AMI and multivessel CAD, particularly for Killip I-II patients. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome across the groups of patients with Killip III-IV.

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.

The management of non-culprit vessel(s) in patients with unstable angina/non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and chronic kidney dysfunction

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The clinical effects of multivessel interventions in patients with unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI), multivessel disease (MVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) remain uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of intervention in non-culprit lession(s) among this cohort.

METHODS

We consecutively included patients diagnosed with UA/NSTEMI, MVD and CKD between January 2008 and December 2018 at our centre. After successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we compared 48-month overall mortality between those undergoing multivessel PCI (MV-PCI) through a single-procedure or staged-procedure approach and culprit vessel-only PCI (CV-PCI) after 1:1 propensity score matching. We conducted stratified analyses and tests for interaction to investigate the modifying effects of critical covariates. Additionally, we recorded the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) to assess the perioperative safety of the two treatment strategies.

RESULTS

Of the 749 eligible patients, 271 pairs were successfully matched. Those undergoing MV-PCI had reduced all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR): 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48-0.67). Subgroup analysis showed that those with advanced CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≤ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 ) could not benefit from MV-PCI (P = 0.250), and the survival advantage also tended to diminish in diabetes (P interaction < 0.01; HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.65-1.45). Although the staged-procedure approach (N = 157) failed to bring additional survival benefits compared to single-procedure MV-PCI (N = 290) (P = 0.460), it showed a tendency to decrease the death risk. CIN risks in MV-PCI and CV-PCI groups were not significantly different (risk ratio = 1.60, 95% CI = 0.94-2.73).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with UA/NSTEMI and non-diabetic CKD and an eGFR > 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 , MV-PCI was associated with a reduced risk of long-term death but did not increase the incidence of CIN during the management of MVD compared to CV-PCI. And staged procedures might be a preferable option over single-procedure MV-PCI.

Immediate versus staged complete revascularization in acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend a complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). However, its optimal timing is unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes following immediate versus staged CR in ACS.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were searched until March 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate versus staged CR. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) at the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), any unplanned revascularization, target-vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombosis. Safety outcomes were major bleeding, contrast volume, procedure duration, and length of hospitalization.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included (3559 patients, weighted mean follow-up 12.5 months). There were no differences in the primary endpoint (OR 0.74, 95%CI: 0.54-1.01) and in the secondary endpoints of death, and stent thrombosis between the two CR strategies. Immediate CR was associated with a lower risk of recurrent MI (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.76), any unplanned revascularization (OR 0.59, 95%CI: 0.43-0.80), and TVR (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.84) compared to staged CR. Immediate CR was also associated with lower total contrast volume and shorter total procedure duration and hospitalization length compared to staged CR without differences in major bleedings.

CONCLUSION

No difference was found between immediate and staged CR regarding MACE, or deaths rates at one year. Immediate CR may be associated with a lower risk of recurrent MI and unplanned coronary revascularization than staged CR.

Comparison of Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularisation in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Non-randomized Studies

Acute myocardial infarction is a critical medical condition that poses a significant health burden, leading to substantial morbidity. Despite advancements in medical care, managing this condition is challenging for patients and society. The preferred approach appears to be comprehensive multivessel revascularization, yet the optimal timing remains uncertain. This study aims to compare immediate complete revascularisation and stage complete vascularization in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). The Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines conducted the present meta-analysis. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using online databases, including PubMed, and EMBASE from 2010 onwards, to identify articles that compared cardiovascular outcomes between patients undergoing immediate and staged complete revascularization. We also searched Google Scholar for additional studies relevant to the present meta-analysis. The primary outcome assessed in this study was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization. A total of 15 studies fulfilled pre-defined eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. Our analysis shows that staged revascularization is associated with improved outcomes in patients with ACS and multivessel CAD, including all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, without increasing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, and the need for unplanned revascularization.

Thirty-day outcomes of in-hospital multi-vessel versus culprit-only revascularization strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel coronary disease

BACKGROUND

Many studies have demonstrated the benefit of complete multivessel revascularization versus culprit-only intervention in patients of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. However, only a few single-center retrospective studies were performed on small Chinese cohorts. Our study aims to demonstrate the advantage of multivessel percutaneous intervention (PCI) strategy on 30-day in-hospital outcomes to patients with STEMI and multivessel disease in larger Chinese population.

METHODS

From the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-Acute Coronary Syndrome (CCC-ACS) project, 5935 patients with STEMI and multivessel disease undergoing PCI and hospitalized for fewer than 30 days were analyzed. After 5: 1 propensity score matching, 3577 patients with culprit-only PCI and 877 with in-hospital multivessel PCI were included. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, all-cause death, stent thrombosis, heart failure, and stroke.

RESULTS

Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that in-hospital multivessel PCI was associated with lower risk of 30-day MACCE (adjusted OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57-0.98, P = 0.032) than culprit-only PCI and conferred no increased risk of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or bleeding. Subgroup analysis showed that MACCE reduction was observed more often from patients with trans-femoral access (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15-0.74) than with trans-radial access (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.66-1.16, P for interaction = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

The in-hospital multivessel PCI strategy was associated with a lower risk of 30-day MACCE than culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery 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.

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.

Optimal Revascularization Strategy for Patients With ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: The relative benefit of immediate complete revascularization, staged complete revascularization, and culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the 3 PCI strategies in this population. Methods: We followed a pre-specified protocol (PROSPERO number: CRD42020183801). A comprehensive search of the electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception through February 21, 2020 was conducted. Randomized trials evaluating the comparative efficacy and safety of at least 2 of the 3 PCI strategies were identified. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular mortality or myocardial infarction (MI) during the longest follow-up. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed with random-effects model. Results: Eleven trials including 6,942 patients were analyzed. Pairwise meta-analysis noted that immediate complete revascularization and staged complete revascularization were respectively associated with a 52 and 27% reduction in the risk of cardiovascular death or MI (relative risk [RR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.73, I² = 0%; and RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.88, I² = 0%, respectively), compared with culprit-only PCI. The risk of cardiovascular death or MI was not statistically different in staged and immediate complete revascularization groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.45-1.72, I² = 0%). Network meta-analysis obtained almost similar results compared with pairwise meta-analysis, and immediate complete revascularization had a 77% probability of being the best strategy for reducing cardiovascular death or MI among the 3 PCI strategies. Conclusion: The current evidence suggests that both immediate and staged complete revascularization were associated with a reduction of cardiovascular death or MI compared with culprit-only PCI. Further trials are warranted to directly compare immediate vs. staged complete revascularization in this population. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, PROSPERO [CRD42020183801].

Predictive Value Analysis of in-Stent Restenosis Within Three Years in Older Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: A Two-Center Retrospective Study

We aimed to investigate prognostic factors of in-stent restenosis (ISR) within 3 years in older acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation and establish a clinical model for predicting ISR. We retrospectively collected 215 older ACS patients who followed coronary angiography (CAG) after DES implantation, divided into ISR group and non in-stent restenosis (non-ISR) group according to the results of reviewed CAG. Logistic regression analysis was performed to screen independent predictors related to ISR and build the clinical predictive model, which clinical application was assessed by decision curve analysis (DCA) and clinical impact curve (CIC). Kaplan-Meier survival curves for ISR by independent predictors. In multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the red cell distribution width (RDW) was higher in ISR group compared with non-ISR (odds ratio (OR) = 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14–2.08, p < 0.01). Instead, a negative correlation was observed between minimum stent diameter and ISR (OR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.09-0.86, p = 0.03). A novel nomogram composed of these significant features presented a concordance index (C-index) of 0.710, DCA and CIC suggested that the predictive nomogram had clinical utility. Schoenfeld residuals showed the model RDW ≥ 12.6% with minimum stent diameter <3 mm was consistent with the proportional risk assumption. The Kaplan-Meier estimate for ISR showed statistical significance. Higher levels of RDW and lower minimum stent diameter were associated with incidence of ISR within 3 years in older ACS patients after DES implantation.

A clinical trial comparing complete revascularization at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention versus during the index hospital admission in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease and STEMI uncomplicated by cardiogenic shock

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to compare major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as a composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction and symptom-induced revascularization, and mortality within one year of randomization between two strategies; complete revascularization including non-culprit lesions percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during primary PCI (PPCI) versus complete revascularization during the same hospital admission in patients with multi-vascular coronary artery disease (MVD) presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) uncomplicated by cardiogenic shock.

METHODS

We randomized in a 1: 1 manner 100 patients with MVD and STEMI uncomplicated by cardiogenic shock who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to either a strategy of complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant non-culprit lesions in the index PPCI procedure or to a strategy of complete revascularization during a second procedure that took place during the same hospital admission.

RESULTS

The first primary outcome was death within a timeframe of one year and the second a composite of MACCE within a year following complete revascularization. Of the total number of patients monitored, 4% in each of the two groups was associated with the first primary outcome (p=0.984) and the second primary outcome in 6% (p=0.970). There was no statistical difference between outcomes in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with MVD and STEMI uncomplicated by cardiogenic shock, there was no difference regarding outcomes when using a strategy of complete revascularization of non-culprit lesions during PPCI or the same hospital admission.

Comparative Effectiveness of Complete Revascularization Strategies in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) should be available for revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) is controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy of various complete revascularization (CR) regimens for STEMI patients with MVD. The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases and clinicaltrial.gov were searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the FFR-guided CR, angiography-guided CR, and culprit-only revascularization (COR) strategies in STEMI patients with MVD. A Bayesian random-effect model was employed to synthesize the evidence in network meta-analysis. We used relative risk (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) as measures of effect size. The primary endpoint was the composite outcome of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction (MI). Twelve RCTs were included. Angiography-guided CR showed a lower event rate of the composite outcome (RR, 0.68; 95%CrI, 0.50–0.87), all-cause mortality (RR, 0.75; 95%CrI, 0.55–0.96), MI (RR, 0.63; 95%CrI, 0.43–0.86), and repeat revascularization (RR, 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.24–0.55) compared with COR. Additionally, angiography-guided CR had a lower risk of primary outcome (RR, 0.64; 95%CrI, 0.38–0.94) and MI (RR, 0.58; 95%CrI, 0.31–0.92) than FFR-guided CR. The difference between the FFR-guided CR and COR in terms of composite outcome, all-cause mortality, and MI was similar. Angiography-guided CR was associated with the highest probability of optimal treatment for the primary outcome (98.5%), followed by FFR-guided CR (1.2%) and COR (0.3%). STEMI patients with MVD benefitted more from angiography-guided CR than from FFR-guided CR. However, only one study compared the effectiveness of FFR-guided and angiography-guided PCI; thus, the comparison between FFR-guided and angiography-guided PCI relied on indirect evidence. Therefore, further studies directly comparing the effectiveness of these two CR strategies are warranted.

Risk factors for revascularization and in-stent restenosis in patients with triple-vessel disease after second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation: a retrospective analysis

Objectives

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common cardiac disease with high morbidity and mortality, and triple-vessel disease (TVD) is a severe type of CAD. This study investigated risk factors for revascularization and in-stent restenosis (ISR) in TVD patients who underwent second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation.

Methods

A retrospective clinical study was conducted, and 246 triple-vessel disease (TVD) patients with 373 vessels after second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation who received follow-up coronary angiography (CAG) were consequently enrolled. According to the follow-up angiography, patients were categorized into the revascularization group and nonrevascularization group as well as the in-stent restenosis (ISR) group and non-ISR group. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors for revascularization and ISR. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with area under the curve (AUC) analysis was performed to assess the predictive power of these risk factors.

Results

In the median follow-up period of 28.0 (14.0, 56.0) months, 142 TVD patients (57.7%) with 168 vessels underwent revascularization, and ISR occurred in 43 TVD patients (17.5%) with 47 vessels after second-generation DES implantation. Compared to the nonrevascularization group, the revascularization group presented with an increased rate of current smoking and higher levels of TC, LDL-C, HDL-C, non-HDL-c, ApoB, neutrophils, and Hs-CRP as well as a longer follow-up of months but with a lower level of HDL-C. In addition, patients in the ISR group had an older age, longer follow-up (months) and elevated rates of current smoking and stage 4–5 chronic kidney disease (CKD4-5). In multivariate analysis, current smoking and higher non-HDL-c were independent risk factors for revascularization. In addition, older age, current smoking and CKD4-5 were considered independent risk factors for ISR. Importantly, the receiver operating characteristic curve showed that non-HDL-C and age displayed predictive power for revascularization and ISR, respectively.

Conclusion

Current smoking is an independent risk factor for both revascularization and in-stent restenosis. Higher non-HDL-c is independently related to revascularization; moreover, increased age and CKD4-5 are potential risk factors for ISR in TVD patients after second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation.

Comparison of Different Timing of Multivessel Intervention During Index-Hospitalization for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background: Many patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were found to have a multivessel disease. Uncertainty still exists in the optimal revascularization strategy in AMI patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcome of immediate multivessel revascularization compared with staged multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with AMI.

Method: This was a nationwide cohort study of 186,112 patients first diagnosed with AMI, 78,699 of whom received PCI for revascularization. Patients who received repetitive PCI during the index hospitalization were referred to as staged multivessel PCI. Immediate multivessel PCI was defined as patients with two-vessel PCI or three-vessel PCI during the index procedure. Cox proportional hazards regression models were performed to evaluate the different indicators of mortality risks in AMI.

Result: Immediate multivessel PCI was associated with a worse long-term outcome than staged multivessel PCI during the index admission (log-rank P < 0.001). There was a higher incidence of stroke in patients with multivessel PCI during hospitalization. In Cox analysis, immediate multivessel PCI was an independent risk factor for mortality compared to those with staged multivessel PCI, regardless of the type of myocardial infarction.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that performing immediate multivessel PCI for AMI may lead to worse long-term survival than staged multivessel PCI. Our findings emphasized the importance of PCI timing for non-infarct-related artery stenosis and provided information to supplement current evidence.

Revascularization Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock: Results from the Portuguese Registry on Acute Coronary Syndromes

Fundamento:

Em doentes com infarto agudo do miocárdio (IAM), choque cardiogênico (CC) e doença multivaso (DMV) persistem dúvidas sobre a intervenção nas artérias não responsáveis.

Objetivos:

1) caracterizar a amostra de doentes com IAM, CC e DMV incluídos no Registo Nacional Português de Síndromes Coronárias Agudas (RNSCA); 2) comparar os eventos associados a diferentes estratégias de revascularização; e 3) identificar preditores de mortalidade intra-hospitalar nesta amostra.

Métodos:

Estudo observacional retrospetivo de doentes com IAM, CC e DMV incluídos no RNSCA entre 2010 e 2018. Compararam-se duas estratégias de revascularização: completa durante o procedimento índice (grupo 1); e completa diferida ou incompleta durante o internamento (grupo 2-3). O endpoint primário foi a ocorrência de reinfarto ou morte intra-hospitalar. A significância estatística foi definida por um valor p < 0,05.

Resultados:

Identificaram-se 127 doentes com IAM, CC e DMV (18,1% no grupo 1 e 81,9% no grupo 2-3), com idade média de 70 ± 12 anos e 92,9% com IAM com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST. O endpoint primário ocorreu em 47,8% dos doentes do grupo 1 e em 37,5% do grupo 2-3 (p = 0,359). As taxas de mortalidade intra-hospitalar, reinfarto, acidente vascular cerebral e hemorragia major foram também semelhantes nos dois grupos. Os preditores de mortalidade intra-hospitalar nesta amostra foram a presença na admissão de disfunção ventricular esquerda (OR 16,8), bloqueio completo de ramo direito (OR 7,6) e anemia (OR 5,2), (p ≤ 0,02).

Conclusões:

Entre os doentes com IAM, CC e DMV, incluídos no RNSCA, não se verificou diferença significativa entre revascularização completa no evento índex e completa diferida ou incompleta durante o internamento, relativamente à ocorrência de morte intra-hospitalar ou reinfarto. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2021; 116(5):867-876)

Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital outcomes and long-term mortality of multivessel versus culprit vessel-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), multivessel disease (MVD) and cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefits of complete revascularization in patients with NSTEMI, MVD, and cardiogenic shock remain uncertain.

METHODS

Among 25,324 patients included in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from July 2009 to March 2018, the rates of in-hospital procedural outcomes were compared between those undergoing multivessel PCI and those undergoing culprit vessel-only PCI after 1:1 propensity score matching. Among patients aged ≥65 years matched to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database, long-term mortality was compared using proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

Multivessel PCI was performed in 9,791 patients (38.7%), which increased from 32.2% in 2010 to 44.2% in 2017 (p for trend <0.001). After 1:1 propensity matching (n = 7,864 in each group), those undergoing multivessel PCI had a 3.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0% to 5.0%) lower absolute rate of in-hospital mortality (30.9% vs. 34.4%; p < 0.001; odds ratio [OR]: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.91), but a higher risk for bleeding (13.2% vs. 10.8%; p < 0.001; OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.40) and new requirement for dialysis (5.7% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.001; OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.46). Among those surviving to discharge, all-cause mortality was similar through 7 years (conditional hazard ratio: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.03; p = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 40% of patients with NSTEMI with MVD and cardiogenic shock underwent multivessel PCI, which was associated with lower in-hospital mortality but greater peri-procedural complications. Among those surviving to discharge, multivessel PCI did not confer additional long-term mortality benefit.

Fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio predicts long-term outcomes for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: A prospective observational cohort study

The fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio index (FAR) is a valuable tool reflecting the systemic inflammation level and associated with the severity of coronary artery disease. However, the utility of the FAR in predicting the long-term prognosis of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease has remained to be determined. A total of 424 patients diagnosed with STEMI and multivessel disease were recruited for the present study. They were given emergent percutaneous coronary intervention treatment and then completed a follow-up for primary (all-cause mortality) and secondary endpoints (major adverse cardiac events, including MI, stroke, emergent revascularization and rehospitalization due to heart failure). The association between FAR and the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score was investigated, while receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was adopted to assess the ability of the FAR to predict long-term outcomes. The long-term survival of high and low FAR groups was compared by drawing Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was adopted to evaluate the risk factors of primary and secondary endpoints. The FAR was revealed to have a linear correlation with the SYNTAX score (y=0.022x+17.737; P=0.015). Furthermore, the FAR was a significant predictor of all-cause death with a cut-off value of 128.4 (area under the curve, 0.832; P<0.001). A significant difference was determined between the high FAR group and the low FAR group in terms of the proportion of patients with the primary endpoint (P<0.001) and secondary endpoint (P=0.001). It was demonstrated that the FAR was an independent risk factor for all-cause death of patients with STEMI and multivessel disease (hazard ratio, 1.029; 95% CI: 1.020-1.037; P<0.001). In summary, the FAR is a valuable biomarker associated with STEMI and may be useful in the prediction of the long-term prognosis of patients with STEMI and multivessel disease.

Evaluation and Management of Nonculprit Lesions in STEMI

Nonculprit lesions are frequently observed in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Results from recent randomized clinical trials suggest that complete revascularization after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction improves outcomes. In this state-of-the-art paper, the authors review these trials and consider how best to determine which nonculprit lesions require revascularization and when this should be performed.

Comparison of revascularization strategies in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether revascularization should be performed as multivessel intervention at the time of index procedure (MV-index), staged procedure (MV-staged), or culprit only intervention (COI) in patients with multivessel disease (MVD) presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is unclear. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the optimal revascularization strategy in this patient population.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were systematically searched to identify all relevant studies. The outcomes assessed were major cardiac adverse events (MACE), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was used to calculate odds ratio (OR) with credible interval (CrI).

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with 8,066 patients were included in the analysis. There was a decreased risk of MACE (MV-index vs. COI: OR, 0.35; 95% CrI, 0.23-0.55; MV-staged vs COI: OR, 0.52; 95% CrI, 0.31-0.81) and revascularization (MV-index vs. COI: OR, 0.27; 95% CrI, 0.15-0.49; MV-staged vs. COI: OR, 0.38; 95% CrI, 0.19-0.70) with MV-index intervention and MV-staged intervention compared with COI. However, MV-index intervention and not MV-staged intervention was associated with a decreased risk of MI (MV-index vs. COI: OR, 0.35; 95% CrI, 0.12-0.93; MV-staged vs. COI: OR, 0.65; 95% CrI, 0.24-1.59) compared with COI.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that multivessel intervention either at index procedure or as staged intervention may be more efficacious compared to COI in patients with MVD presenting with ACS.

Percutaneous complete revascularization strategies using sirolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stents in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease: Rationale and design of the BIOVASC trial

BACKGROUND

Complete revascularization in patients with an acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease is superior compared to culprit-only treatment. However, it is unknown whether direct complete or staged complete revascularization should be pursued.

METHODS

The BIOVASC study is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter, randomized, 2-arm, international, open-label, noninferiority trial. We will randomize 1,525 patients 1:1 to immediate complete revascularization (experimental arm) or culprit-only plus staged complete revascularization (control arm). Patients will be enrolled in approximately 30 sites in Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (excluding staged procedures in the control arm at the predetermined time), and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 1 year post index procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The BIOVASC study aims to further refine the treatment algorithm for acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease in terms of optimal timing for complete revascularization (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03621501).

Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in Patients Presenting With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit vessel is the preferred treatment option. For patients with multivessel disease, the benefit of revascularization of the non-culprit artery is not well known. This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of complete versus culprit vessel only revascularization.

METHODS

Randomized control trials (RCT) that compared head-to-head complete versus culprit-vessel only revascularization in STEMI patients and reported main outcomes of interest such as mortality, myocardial infarction, and revascularization, were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We found ten RCTs satisfying our inclusion criteria. Data was extracted and used to estimate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous variables. Our study included 7030 patients (3426 complete revascularization, and 3604 culprit-only revascularization). Complete revascularization (CR) (both immediate and staged) significantly reduced the risk of MACE compared with culprit only (CO) revascularization (10.7% vs 20.1%, RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.64; P < 0.0001), reinfarction (5.0% vs 6.9%, RR 0.69; 95 CI 0.51 to 0.93; P < 0.01), and revascularization (4.2% vs 12.7%, RR 0.37; 95 CI 0.26 to 0.54; P < 0.0001). Our analysis did not find any significant difference in all-cause mortality between CR and CO (4.6% vs 5.0%, RR 0.89; 95 CI 0.72 to 0.1.10; P = 0.27).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, complete revascularization was associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, revascularization and reinfarction.

The Utility of New Biomarker-based Predictive Model for Clinical Outcomes Among ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients

Aim:

To determine the discriminative potency of score to prognosticate poor clinical outcomes in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) patients.

Methods:

From the entire population of STEMI (n=268), we enrolled 177 individuals with acute STEMI who underwent complete revascularization with primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI). Clinical assessment, echocardiography, Doppler, and biomarkers’ measure were performed at baseline.

Results:

Combined endpoint (Major Cardiovascular Events - MACEs [composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, newly diagnosed Heart Failure] and hospitalization) was determined in 75 patients with acute STEMI population (40.6%). Newly onset heart failure (HF) was reported in 46 patients (26.0%), Cardiovascular (CV) death occurred in 12 patients (6.8%), MACEs were determined in 58 patients (32.8%), and recurrent hospitalization due to CV reasons was found in 17 (9.6%). The conventional risk predictive models were engineered by a combination of TIMI risk score +acute HF Killip class ≥ II + the levels of NT-pro brain natriuretic peptide > 300 pg / mL and troponin >0.05 ng/mL. We developed a new predictive model based on the presentation of T786С genotype of endothelial NO syntase gene (rs 2070744), А1166С in angiotensin-ІІ receptor-1 gene (rs5186) and serum levels of soluble suppressor tumorigenicity ≥35 pg/mL, vascular endothelial growth factor ≤172 pg/mL and macrophage inhibitory factor ≥2792.7 pg/mL. STEMI patients who had >5 score points demonstrated significantly worse prognosis than those who had ≤5 score points.

Conclusion:

Here we have reported that a new original predictive model is better than a conventional model in discriminative ability to predict combined clinical outcome in STEMI patients.

Structural heart disease: the year in valvular and complex coronary intervention trials

The need for treatment strategies targeting complex structural heart and obstructive epicardial coronary artery disease (CAD) is rapidly growing. The demographics in referral centers has shifted to an older population with greater co-morbidities and higher risk. Indeed, nearly one quarter of patients in tertiary-care settings have moderate or severe valvular heart disease, and despite a decrease in overall CAD burden in the United States over the past two decades the prevalence of myocardial infarction remains high. The 2019 societal scientific sessions included novel research and landmark presentations on less invasive valvular and safer complex coronary interventions in the aforementioned populations, in hopes of improving patient outcomes and expanding treatment indications. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), percutaneous mitral and tricuspid valve therapy, and complex coronary interventions, were the focus of important clinical trials and registry data. Herein, we provide a select and concise review of the most pivotal studies presented.

Should fractional flow reserve follow angiographic visual inspection to guide preventive percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction?

Aims

We aimed to quantify the effect of preventive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI to non-infarct arteries) on cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) according to whether the decision to carry out preventive PCI was based on angiographic visual inspection (AVI alone) or AVI plus fractional flow reserve (FFR) if AVI showed significant stenosis (AVI plus FFR).

Methods and results

Randomized trials comparing preventive PCI with no preventive PCI in STEMI without shock were identified by a systematic literature search and categorized according to whether they used AVI alone or AVI plus FFR to select patients for preventive PCI. Random effects meta-analyses and tests of heterogeneity were used to compare the two categories in respect of cardiac death and MI as a combined outcome and individually. Eleven eligible trials were identified. For cardiac death and MI, the relative risk estimates for AVI alone vs. AVI plus FFR were 0.39 (0.25–0.61) and 0.85 (0.57–1.28), respectively (P = 0.01 for difference), for cardiac death, alone the estimates were 0.36 (0.19–0.71) and 0.79 (0.36–1.77), respectively (P = 0.15 for difference), and for MI alone, 0.41 (0.23–0.73) and 0.98 (0.62–1.56), respectively (P = 0.04 for difference).

Conclusion

In preventive PCI among STEMI patients, AVI alone achieves a ∼60% reduction in cardiac death and MI but selecting patients using FFR in AVI positive patients loses much of the benefit. Angiographic visual inspection is best used without FFR in this group of patients.

A risk score based on simple angiographic characteristics to aid in choosing the optimal revascularization strategy for patients with multivessel disease presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularization strategy is not clearly defined for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease (MV-STEMI). We aimed to develop a simple angiographic risk score for identifying patients with MV-STEMI that might benefit from a multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI), compared to a PCI for only the infarct-related artery (IRA-PCI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective study acquired data from a single-center STEMI registry on 841 consecutive patients with MV-STEMI (645 IRA-PCI and 196 MV-PCI). Patients were stratified according to high- and low-risk scores. We devised a score based on three characteristics of non-culprit lesions previously reported to predict overall mortality (proximal left anterior descending artery involvement, maximal % stenosis, and number of involved vessels). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs: a composite of death/MI/urgent repeat revascularization). After a median follow-up of 1909 days, MACE occurred in 205/841 (24.4%) patients. MACE risk was higher in the high-risk than in the low-risk group (HR 1.43, P < 0.001). In comparing the IRA-PCI and MV-PCI approaches within each risk group, we found that these revascularization strategies had differential effects on outcome. Compared to the MV-PCI, IRA-PCI was associated with less MACE in the low-risk group (HR 0.597, P = 0.033), and more MACE in the high-risk group (HR 3.14, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For patients with MV-STEMI that undergo primary PCI, a simple risk score based on three angiographic characteristics could identify patients at high risk of future adverse events. This score might facilitate choosing the optimal revascularization strategy.

ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease – A Critical Review of Current Practice, Evidence and Meta-analyses

Collapse

Opportunities for enhancing the care of older patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction presenting for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: Rationale and design of the SAFE-STEMI for Seniors trial

Advanced age is directly related to worse outcomes following ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and higher complication rates from antithrombotic therapies and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Often excluded from clinical trials, seniors presenting with STEMI remain an understudied population despite contributing to 140,000 hospital admissions annually. The SAFE-STEMI for Seniors study is a prospective, multicenter, unblinded, randomized clinical trial designed to examine the efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided complete revascularization in multivessel disease, while also investigating other components of STEMI care for patients ≥60 years including the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents for primary PCI and transradial PCI with the Glidesheath Slender and TR band. The SAFE-STEMI trial represents North America's first and only prospective randomized investigational device exemption study to use a Coordinated Registry Network infrastructure with collaborative partnering across industry manufacturers, promoting both efficiency and reduced cost of evidence development for regulatory decisions related to both diagnostic and therapeutic technologies in a single study design. The study has been powered to evaluate 2 independent co-primary end points in a population of older patients with STEMI: (1) third-generation drug-eluting stents for primary PCI and (2) instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided complete revascularization versus infarct-related artery-only revascularization.

Complete Revascularization During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Reduces Death and Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Multivessel Disease: Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare complete revascularization with a culprit-only strategy in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel disease by a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND

Although several trials have compared complete with culprit-only revascularization in ST-segment elevation MI, it remains unclear whether complete revascularization may lead to improvement in hard endpoints (death and MI).

METHODS

Randomized trials comparing complete revascularization with culprit-only revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation MI without cardiogenic shock were identified by a systematic search of published research. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing clinical outcomes in the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Eleven trials were identified, including a total of 3,561 patients. Compared with a culprit-only strategy, complete revascularization significantly reduced risk for death or MI (relative risk [RR]: 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 0.99; p = 0.04). Meta-regression showed that performing complete revascularization at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was associated with better outcomes (p = 0.016). The 6 trials performing complete revascularization during primary PCI (immediate revascularization) were associated with a significant reduction in risk for both total mortality (RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.97; p = 0.03) and MI (RR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.66; p < 0.001), whereas the 5 trials performing only staged revascularization did not show any significant benefit in either total mortality (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.62; p = 0.87) or MI (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.68; p = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

When feasible, complete revascularization with PCI can significantly reduce the combined endpoint of death and MI. Complete revascularization performed during primary PCI was also associated with significant reductions in both total mortality and MI, whereas staged revascularization did not improve these outcomes.

Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Whether PCI of nonculprit lesions further reduces the risk of such events is unclear.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization). The first coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; the second coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 3 years, the first coprimary outcome had occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P = 0.004). The second coprimary outcome had occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.61; P<0.001). For both coprimary outcomes, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed regardless of the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (P = 0.62 and P = 0.27 for interaction for the first and second coprimary outcomes, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only PCI in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, as well as the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; COMPLETE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740479.).

Design and rationale of the COMPLETE trial: A randomized, comparative effectiveness study of complete versus culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention to treat multivessel coronary artery disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

A significant proportion of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Following successful culprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI, the question of whether to routinely revascularize non-culprit lesions or manage them conservatively with optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone is a common dilemma facing clinicians. METHODS: COMPLETE is a prospective, randomized, international, multicenter, parallel group, open-label trial with blinded evaluation of outcomes. Following successful PCI (contemporary drug eluting stents recommended) of the culprit lesion for STEMI, a total of 4041 patients from 140 centers in 31 countries were randomized to receive either complete revascularization, consisting of staged PCI of all suitable non-culprit lesions plus optimal medical therapy (OMT), or to culprit lesion-only PCI, consisting of OMT alone. OMT comprises evidence-based therapy for STEMI, including and dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, HTN and lipid management. All coronary angiograms in the trial are being evaluated in a central angiographic core lab to assess quality and completeness of revascularization. The co-primary outcomes are (1): the composite of CV death or new non-fatal MI and (2 the composite of CV death, new non-fatal MI or ischemia-driven revascularization at a median follow-up of 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The COMPLETE trial is an international multicenter randomized trial that will help determine whether complete revascularization involving staged PCI of non-culprit lesions improves outcomes in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD. (clinicaltrials.govNCT01740479).

Impact of stent generation on 2-year clinical outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease who underwent culprit-only or multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Data concerning the impact of stent generation on long-term outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD) who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with culprit-only PCI (C-PCI) or multivessel PCI (M-PCI) are limited.

METHODS

A total of 7,266 patients were separated into the two groups, a C-PCI (n = 4,901) or M-PCI group (n = 2,365). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularization. The secondary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) at 2 years.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of MACE was significantly higher in the bare-metal stents (BMS) group than the first-generation (1G)-drug-eluting stents (DES) (C-PCI: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.940; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.389-2.709; p < .001; M-PCI: aHR, 1.544; 95% CI, 1.099-2.074; p = .038), and the second-generation (2G)-DES group (C-PCI: aHR, 2.271; 95% CI, 1.657-3.114; p < .001; M-PCI: aHR, 2.999; 95% CI, 1.899-4.704; p < .001). In the M-PCI group, 1G-DES showed a higher incidence of MACE compared with 2G-DES (aHR, 1.639; 95% CI, 1.028-2.614; p = .004). The cumulative incidences of ST in the both groups were similar.

CONCLUSION

The cumulative incidence of MACE was the lowest for 2G-DES, the highest for BMS, and intermediate for 1G-DES in the STEMI patients with MVD after C-PCI or M-PCI. However, cumulative incidence of ST in the two different reperfusion strategy groups was similar regardless of stent generation.

Early Complete Revascularization in Hemodynamically Stable Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy and timing of revascularization in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the comparative efficacy and safety of early complete revascularization vs culprit-only or staged revascularization in this setting.

METHODS

We searched the literature for randomized clinical trials that assessed this issue. Early complete revascularization was defined as a complete revascularization achieved during the index procedure or within 72 hours. Efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes were all bleeding events, stroke, and contrast-induced acute kidney injury.

RESULTS

Nine randomized clinical trials with a total of 2837 patients were included; 1254 received early complete revascularization and 1583 were treated with other revascularization strategies. After a mean follow-up of 15.3 ± 9.4 months early complete revascularization was associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (relative risk [RR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.62; P < 0.00001; number needed to treat = 8), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40-0.87), and repeat revascularization (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55) without any difference in all-cause mortality and in safety outcomes compared with culprit-only or staged revascularization. Moreover, fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization reduced the incidence of repeat revascularization compared with angiography-guided procedure (χ² = 4.36; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Early complete revascularization should be considered in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease deemed suitable for percutaneous interventions. Fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization might be superior to angiography-guided procedures in reducing need for further interventions.

Comparison of 30-Day MACE between Immediate versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Acute Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease, and the Effect of Coronary Lesion Complexity

Background and objective: In patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, the timing of intervention to non-culprit lesions is still a matter of debate, especially in patients without shock. This study aimed to compare the effect of multivessel intervention, performed at index percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (MVI-I) or index hospitalization (MVI-S), on the 30-day results of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and to investigate the effect of coronary lesion complexity assessed by the Syntax (Sx) score on the timing of multivessel intervention. Materials and methods: We enrolled 180 patients with MVI-I, and 425 patients with MVI-S. The major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) for this study were identified as mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, acute heart failure, ischemia driven revascularization, major bleeding, and acute renal failure developed within 30 days. Results: The unadjusted MACE rates at 30 days were 11.2% and 5% among those who underwent MVI-I and MVI-S, respectively (OR 3.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51–6.02; p = 0.002). Associations were statistically significant after adjusting for covariates in the penalized multivariable model (adjusted OR 2.06; 95%CI 1.02–4.18; p = 0.043), propensity score adjusted multivariable model (adjusted OR 2.46; 95%CI 1.19–5.07; p = 0.015), and IPW (adjusted OR 2.11; 95%CI 1.28–3.47; p = 0.041). We found that the Syntax score of lesions did not affect the results. Conclusion: MVI-S was associated with a lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days after discharge.

Completeness of Revascularization as a Determinant of Outcome: A Contemporary Review and Clinical Perspectives

It has been debated whether patients with multivessel coronary artery disease should undergo complete revascularization (CR). The benefit of CR is biologically plausible, and numerous studies and large meta-analyses suggested that CR achievement was associated with a substantial reduction of mortality and future coronary events. In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, the aim of myocardial revascularization is to minimize residual ischemia. Therefore, CR of all significant coronary lesions has been proposed as the first priority in decision-making for myocardial revascularization between coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Reflecting the contemporary practice of ischemia-based revascularization, a physiological/functional approach, such as measurement of fractional flow reserve or instantaneous wave-free ratio, is considered more reasonable and should be encouraged for appropriate CR. In patients who present with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction, current evidence suggests that an immediate or staged CR strategy might be equivalent or superior to culprit-only revascularization. There is still uncertainty on when and how to perform CR in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients; comprehensive studies dedicated to this issue are required. Hybrid coronary revascularization includes the advantages of minimally invasive bypass grafting for the left anterior descending artery and PCI for non-left anterior descending arteries and has been proposed as a viable alternative for coronary artery bypass grafting or PCI only for achieving CR. In clinical practice, the extent of revascularization and strategy for CR should be individualized, taking account of different aspects of the patients, lesions, and treating physicians. Collaboration of coronary heart teams would confer balanced decision-making and advanced therapeutic capabilities.

Optimal timing of complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a pairwise and network meta-analysis

Introduction

The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease is unclear. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to determine the optimal revascularization strategy for treating these patients.

Methods

Searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrial.gov, and the reference lists of relevant papers were performed covering the period between the year 2000 and March 20, 2017. A pairwise analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to compare the effectiveness of early complete revascularization (CR) during the index hospitalization, delayed CR, and culprit only revascularization (COR). The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which were defined as the composite of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, and all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were the rates of all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and repeat revascularization. This study is registered at PROSPERO under registration number CRD42017059980.

Results

Eleven randomized controlled trials including a total of 3,170 patients were identified. A pairwise meta-analysis showed that compared with COR, early CR was associated with significantly decreased risks of MACE (relative risk [RR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.39–0.56), MI (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37–0.83), and repeat revascularization (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.27–0.46) but not of all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52–1.16). These results were confirmed by trial sequential analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that early CR had the highest probability of being the first treatment option during MACE (89.2%), MI (83.3%), and repeat revascularization (80.4%).

Conclusion

Early CR during the index hospitalization was markedly superior to COR with respect to reducing the risk of MACE, as CR significantly decreased the risks of MI and repeat revascularization compared with COR. However, further study is warranted to determine whether CR during the index hospitalization can improve survival in patients with concurrent ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. The optimal timing of CR remains inconclusive considering the small number of studies and patients included in the analysis comparing early and delayed CR.

Culprit Vessel Only Versus Complete Revascularisation in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction – Should we Stay or Stage?

Multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) is common in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), thereby negatively affecting mortality and outcome. Currently there is increasing evidence that complete revascularisation should be considered in haemodynamically stable patients. There are few larger randomised controlled trials available showing a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events after complete revascularisation, mainly driven by a reduction of repeat revascularisation. However, these trials are not adequately powered to show a mortality benefit or reduced risk of myocardial infarction. As there are several possible strategies, the presence of MVCAD often poses a therapeutic dilemma for interventional cardiologists and there is still ongoing debate on when and how to perform complete revascularisation. Pending further trials that may clarify which strategy is best, an individualised approach should be adopted.

Percutaneous Intervention in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Culprit-only or Complete Revascularization?

The best approach of multivessel coronary artery disease in the context of acute myocardial infarction with ST segment elevation and primary percutaneous coronary intervention is one of the main reasons for controversy in cardiology. Although the main global guidelines do not recommend routine complete revascularization in these patients, recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated benefit of this approach in reducing cardiovascular outcomes. For this reason, an adequate review of this evidence is essential in order to establish scientifically based strategy and achieve better outcomes for these patients who present with acute myocardial infarction. This review aims to present objectively the most recent evidence available on this topic.

Impact of atrial fibrillation on outcomes of patients treated by transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conflicting data have been reported related to the impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) on the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We aimed to assess the prognosis of TAVI-treated patients according to the presence of pre-existing or new-onset AF.

METHODS

Studies published between April 2002 and November 2016 and reporting outcomes of pre-existing AF, new-onset AF, or sinus rhythm in patients undergoing TAVI were identified with an electronic search. Pairwise and network meta-analysis were performed. Outcomes of interest were short- and long-term mortality, stroke, and major bleeding.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (11,033 individuals) were eligible. Compared to sinus rhythm, short-term and long-term mortality were significantly higher in new-onset AF (short-term OR 2.9, P=.002; long-term OR 2.3, P<.0001) and pre-existing AF groups (short-term OR 2.7, P=.004; long-term OR 2.8, P<.0001). Compared to sinus rhythm, new-onset AF increased the risk of stroke at early (OR 2.1, P<.0001) and late follow-up (OR 1.92, P<.0001), and the risk of early bleedings (OR 1.65, P=.002), while pre-existing AF increased the risk of late stroke (OR 1.3, P=0.03), but not the risk of bleeding. Compared to pre-existing AF, new-onset AF correlated with higher risk of early stroke (OR 1.7, P=.002) and major bleedings (OR 1.7, P=.002).

CONCLUSIONS

AF is associated with impaired outcomes after TAVI, including mortality, stroke and (limited to new-onset AF) major bleedings. Compared to pre-existing AF, new-onset AF correlates with higher risk of early stroke and major bleedings. Improved management of AF in the TAVI setting, including tailored antithrombotic treatment strategies, remains a relevant need.

Complete versus culprit only revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction-a perspective on recent trials and recommendations

The presence of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is strongly associated with higher 30-day mortality, reduced myocardial reperfusion success, reinfarction, and occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year compared with single-vessel CAD. Despite higher morbidity and mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and coexistent multivessel CAD, major guidelines recommended against percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on non-culprit lesions at the time of primary PCI in patients with STEMI who are hemodynamically stable. The presence of multivessel CAD often poses a therapeutic dilemma for interventional cardiologists. A few larger scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have been conducted. The conclusions regarding multivessel PCI generally trend towards lower risk of MACE, repeat revascularization, with similar risks of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) and mortality. However, none of the RCTs were adequately powered for hard outcomes of death and MI.