PCI for Nonculprit Lesions in Patients with STEMI - No Role for FFR

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

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Coronary physiology in the catheterisation laboratory: an A to Z practical guide

Coronary revascularisation, either percutaneous or surgical, aims to improve coronary flow and relieve myocardial ischaemia. The decision-making process in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) remains largely based on invasive coronary angiography (ICA), even though until recently ICA could not assess the functional significance of coronary artery stenoses. Invasive wire-based approaches for physiological evaluations were developed to properly assess the ischaemic relevance of epicardial CAD. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and later, instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), were shown to improve clinical outcomes in several patient subsets when used for coronary revascularisation guidance or deferral and for procedural optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results. Despite accumulating evidence and positive guideline recommendations, the adoption of invasive physiology has remained quite low, mainly due to technical and economic issues as well as to operator-resistance to change. Coronary image-based computational physiology has been recently developed, with promising results in terms of accuracy and a reduction in computational time, costs, radiation exposure and risks for the patient. Lastly, the integration of intracoronary imaging and physiology allows for individualised PCI treatment, aiming at complete relief of ischaemia through optimised morpho-functional immediate procedural results. Instead of a conventional state-of-the-art review, this A to Z dictionary attempts to provide a practical guide for the application of coronary physiology in the catheterisation laboratory, exploring several methods, their pitfalls, and useful tips and tricks.