Fractional flow reserve versus angiography-guided strategy in acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a randomized trial

Illusion of revascularization: does anyone achieve optimal revascularization during percutaneous coronary intervention?

This Perspective article is a form of 'pastiche', inspired by the 1993 review by Lincoff and Topol entitled 'Illusion of reperfusion', and explores how their concept continues to apply to percutaneous revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease and ischaemia. Just as Lincoff and Topol argued that reperfusion of acute myocardial infarction was facing unresolved obstacles that hampered clinical success in 1993, we propose that challenging issues are similarly jeopardizing the potential benefits of stent-based angioplasty today. By analysing the appropriateness and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we emphasize the limitations of relying solely on visual angiographic guidance, which frequently leads to inappropriate stenting and overtreatment in up to one-third of patients and the associated increased risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction. The lack of optimal revascularization observed in half of patients undergoing PCI confers risks such as suboptimal physiology after PCI, residual angina and long-term stent-related events, leaving an estimated 76% of patients with an 'illusion of revascularization'. These outcomes highlight the need to refine our diagnostic tools by integrating physiological assessments with targeted intracoronary imaging and emerging strategies, such as co-registration systems and angiography-based computational methods enhanced by artificial intelligence, to achieve optimal revascularization outcomes.

Immediate vs. multistage revascularization of non-infarct coronary artery(-ies) in patients with hemodynamically stable multivessel disease acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Untreated multivessel disease (MVD) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been linked to a higher risk of recurrent ischemia and death within one year . Current guidelines recommend percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for significant non-infarct artery (-ies) (non-IRA) stenosis in hemodynamically stable AMI patients with MVD, either during or after successful primary PCI, within 45-days. However, deciding the timing of revascularization for non-IRA in cases of MVD is uncertain.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed based on PRISMA guidelines after registering in PROSPERO (CRD42023472652). Databases were searched for relevant articles published before 10 November 2023. Pertinent data from the included studies were extracted and analyzed using RevMan v5.4.

RESULTS

Out of 640 studies evaluated, there were 13 RCTs with 5144 patients with AMI with MVD. The immediate non-IRA PCI is associated with a significantly lower occurrence of unplanned ischemia-driven PCI (OR 0.60; confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.83) and target-vessel revascularization (OR 0.72; CI 0.53-0.97) . Although there is a favorable trend for major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), nonfatal AMI, cerebrovascular events, and major bleeding in the immediate non-culprit artery (-ies) PCI, those were statistically non-significant. Similarly, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stent thrombosis, and acute renal insufficiency did not show significant differences between two groups.

CONCLUSION

Among hemodynamically stable patients with multivessel AMI, the immediate PCI strategy was superior to the multistage PCI strategy for the unplanned ischemia-driven PCI and target-vessel revascularization while odds are favorable in terms of MACCE, nonfatal AMI, cerebrovascular events, and major bleeding at longest follow-up.

Discordance Between Angiographic Assessment and Fractional Flow Reserve or Intravascular Ultrasound in Intermediate Coronary Lesions: A Post-hoc Analysis of the FLAVOUR Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions.

METHODS

This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months.

RESULTS

The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCA-FFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479). Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02673424.

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.

Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization Strategies After Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention improves outcomes compared with culprit revascularization following myocardial infarction (MI) with multivessel coronary artery disease. An all-cause mortality reduction has never been demonstrated. Debate also remains regarding the optimal timing of complete revascularization (immediate or staged), and method of evaluation of nonculprit lesions (physiology or angiography).

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to perform an updated systematic review with frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses including the totality of randomized data investigating revascularization strategies in patients presenting with MI and multivessel coronary artery disease.

METHODS

The primary comparison tested complete vs culprit revascularization. Timing and methods of achieving complete revascularization were assessed. The prespecified primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Outcomes were expressed as relative risk (RR) (95% CI).

RESULTS

Twenty-four eligible trials randomized 16,371 patients (weighted mean follow-up: 26.4 months). Compared with culprit revascularization, complete revascularization reduced all-cause mortality in patients with any MI (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74-0.99; P = 0.04). Cardiovascular mortality, MI, major adverse cardiac events and repeat revascularization were also significantly reduced. In patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, the point estimate for all-cause mortality with complete revascularization was RR: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.78-1.05; P = 0.18). Rates of stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and acute kidney injury were similar. Immediate complete revascularization ranked higher than staged complete revascularization for all endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete revascularization following MI reduces all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, major adverse cardiac events, and repeat revascularization. There may be benefits to immediate complete revascularization, but additional head-to-head trials are needed.

Assessment of Coronary Stenoses for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Evidence regarding the comparative efficacy of the different methods to determine the significance of coronary stenoses in the catheterization laboratory is lacking. We aimed to compare all available methods guiding the decision to perform percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL until October 5, 2023. We included trials that randomized patients with greater than 30% stenoses who were considered for PCI and reported major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 15 trials with 16,333 participants with a mean weighted follow-up of 34 months. The trials contained a median of 49.3% (interquartile range: 32.6%, 100%) acute coronary syndrome participants. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) was associated with a decreased risk of MACE compared with coronary angiography (CA) (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 0.82, high certainty), fractional flow reserve (FFR) (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.92, moderate certainty), and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.82, moderate certainty), and ranked first for MACE (88.1% probability of being the best). FFR (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06, moderate certainty) and iFR (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.28, moderate certainty) likely did not decrease the risk of MACE compared with CA. Intravascular imaging may not be associated with a significant decrease in MACE compared with CA (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.17, low certainty) when used to guide the decision to perform PCI. In conclusion, a decision to perform PCI based on QFR was associated with a decreased risk of MACE compared with CA, FFR, and iFR in a mixed stable coronary disease and acute coronary syndrome population. These hypothesis-generating findings should be validated in large, randomized, head-to-head trials.

Quantitative flow ratio or angiography for the assessment of non-culprit lesions in acute coronary syndromes, a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes often have multivessel disease (MVD). Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an angiography-based technology that may help quantify the functional significance of non-culprit lesions, with the advantage that measurements are possible also once the patient is discharged from the catheterization laboratory.

AIM

Our two-center, randomized superiority trial aimed to test whether QFR, as compared to angiography, modifies the rate of non-culprit lesion interventions (primary functional endpoint) and improves the outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes and MVD (primary clinical endpoint).

METHODS

In total, 202 consecutive patients (64 [56-71] years of age, 160 men) with STEMI (n = 69 (34%)), NSTEMI (n = 94 (47%)), or unstable angina (n = 39 (19%)) and MVD who had undergone successful treatment of all culprit lesions were randomized 1:1 to angiography- vs. QFR-guided delayed revascularization of 246 non-culprit stenoses (1.2/patient).

RESULTS

The proportion of patients assigned to percutaneous intervention was not different between groups (angiography group: 45 (45%) vs. QFR: 56 (55%), P = 0.125; relative risk = 0.80 (0.60-1.06)). At 12 months, a primary clinical endpoint event (composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, revascularization, and significant angina) occurred in 24 patients (angiography-guided) and 23 patients (QFR-guided; P = 0.637, HR = 1.16 [0.63-2.15]). None of its components was different between groups.

DISCUSSION

QFR guidance based on analysis of images from the primary intervention was not associated with a difference in the rate of non-culprit lesion staged revascularization nor in the 12-month incidence of clinical events in patients with acute coronary syndromes and multivessel disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04808310).

Use of coronary physiology to guide revascularization in clinical practice: results of the F(FR)2 registry

BACKGROUND

Despite the recommendation of coronary physiology to guide revascularization in angiographically intermediate stenoses without established correlation to ischemia, its uptake in clinical practice is slow.

AIMS

This study aimed to analyze the use of coronary physiology in clinical practice.

METHODS

Based on a multicenter registry (Fractional Flow Reserve Fax Registry, F(FR)2, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03055910), clinical use, consequences, and complications of coronary physiology were systematically analyzed.

RESULTS

F(FR)2 enrolled 2,000 patients with 3,378 intracoronary pressure measurements. Most measurements (96.8%) were performed in angiographically intermediate stenoses. Out of 3,238 lesions in which coronary physiology was used to guide revascularization, revascularization was deferred in 2,643 (78.2%) cases. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was the most common pressure index used (87.6%), with hyperemia induced by an intracoronary bolus of adenosine in 2,556 lesions (86.4%) and intravenous adenosine used for 384 measurements (13.0%). The route of adenosine administration did not influence FFR results (change-in-estimate -3.1% for regression model predicting FFR from diameter stenosis). Agreement with the subsequent revascularization decision was 93.4% for intravenous and 95.0% for intracoronary adenosine (p = 0.261). Coronary artery occlusion caused by the pressure wire was reported in two cases (0.1%) and dissection in three cases (0.2%), which was fatal once (0.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical practice, intracoronary pressure measurements are mostly used to guide revascularization decisions in angiographically intermediate stenoses. Intracoronary and intravenous administration of adenosine seem equally suited. While the rate of serious complications of wire-based intracoronary pressure measurements in clinical practice seems to be low, it is not negligible.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

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

Complete versus culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is commonly performed for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) in the elderly. Complete revascularization has been shown to benefit the general population, yet its safety and efficacy in older patients are uncertain.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing complete versus culprit-only PCI in patients ≥65 years old with ACS and MVD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR), all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. Data were pooled using a random effects model with a restricted maximum likelihood estimator to generate risk ratios (RRs).

RESULTS

Five RCTs with 4105 patients aged ≥65 years were included. Compared with culprit-only PCI, complete revascularization reduced MI (RR 0.65; 95 % CI 0.49-0.85; p < 0.01). MACE (RR 0.75; 95 % CI 0.54-1.05; p = 0.09) and IDR (RR 0.41; 95 % CI 0.16-1.04; p = 0.06) were not significantly different between both strategies among those aged ≥65. However, there was a significant reduction in MI (RR 0.69; 95 % CI 0.49-0.96; p-value = 0.03), MACE (RR 0.78; 95 % CI 0.65-0.94; p < 0.01), and IDR (RR 0.60; 95 % CI 0.41-0.89; p < 0.01) in those aged ≥75.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients aged ≥65 years with ACS and MVD, a strategy of complete revascularization by PCI reduces MI compared to culprit-only PCI with no significant difference in MACE and IDR. However, complete revascularization reduced MI, MACE, and IDR in those aged ≥75 years suggesting a possible benefit in this age group.

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.

Three-Year Outcomes With Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided or Angiography-Guided Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

In patients with multivessel disease with successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, the FLOWER-MI trial (Flow Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) showed that a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy was not superior to an angiography-guided strategy for treatment of noninfarct-related artery lesions regarding the 1-year risk of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization. The extension phase of the trial was planned using the same primary outcome to determine whether a difference in outcomes would be observed with a longer follow-up.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease with successful percutaneous coronary intervention of the infarct-related artery to receive complete revascularization guided by either FFR (n=586) or angiography (n=577).

RESULTS

After 3 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 52 of 498 patients (9.40%) in the FFR-guided group and in 44 of 502 patients (8.17%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.79-1.77]; P=0.4). Death occurred in 22 patients (4.00%) in the FFR-guided group and in 23 (4.32%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.53-1.71]); nonfatal myocardial infarction in 23 (4.13%) and 14 (2.56%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 0.84-3.16]); and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in 21 (3.83%) and 18 (3.36%; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.61-2.16]), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although event rates in the trial were lower than expected, in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing complete revascularization, an FFR-guided strategy did not have a significant benefit over an angiography-guided strategy with respect to the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization up to 3 years.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02943954.

Prognostic significance of compliance with fractional flow reserve guidance on diverse vessel-related clinical outcomes

Background

In patients underwent fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment, a noteworthy proportion of adverse events occur in vessels in which FFR has not been measured. However, the effect of these non-target vessel-related events on the evaluation of FFR-related benefits remains unknown.

Methods and results

In this retrospective study, vessels subjected to FFR measurement were grouped as FFR-based approach and non-compliance with FFR based on whether they received FFR-based treatment. Using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to account for potential confounding, we investigated the association between compliance with FFR and 5-year target vessel failure (TVF) non-target vessel failure (NTVF) and vessel-oriented composite endpoints (VOCEs). Of the 1,119 vessels, 201 did not receive FFR-based treatment. After IPTW adjustment, a significantly lower hazard of TVF was observed in the FFR-based approach group (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.34-0.92). While, the intergroup difference in hazard of NTVF (HR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.45-2.31) and VOCEs (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.45-1.05) were nonsignificant.

Conclusions

In patients with CAD subjected to FFR, the FFR-based treatment yields a sustained clinical benefit in terms of the risks of target vessel-related events. The dilution of non-target vessel-related events renders the difference favoring the FFR-based approach nonsignificant.

Clinical Value of Single-Projection Angiography-Derived FFR in Noninfarct-Related Artery

BACKGROUND

The Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (μFR) is an emerging technique that requires only 1 projection of coronary angiography with similar accuracy to quantitative flow ratio (QFR). However, it has not been validated for the evaluation of noninfarct-related artery (non-IRA) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) settings. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of μFR and the safety of deferring non-IRA lesions with μFR >0.80 in the setting of AMI.

METHODS

μFR and QFR were analyzed for non-IRA lesions of patients with AMI enrolled in the FRAME-AMI trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non-Infarction Related Artery Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction), consisting of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention groups. The diagnostic accuracy of μFR was compared with QFR and FFR. Patients were classified by the non-IRA μFR value of 0.80 as a cutoff value. The primary outcome was a vessel-oriented composite outcome, a composite of cardiac death, non-IRA-related myocardial infarction, and non-IRA-related repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

μFR and QFR analyses were feasible in 443 patients (552 lesions). μFR showed acceptable correlation with FFR (R=0.777; P<0.001), comparable C-index with QFR to predict FFR ≤0.80 (μFR versus QFR: 0.926 versus 0.961, P=0.070), and shorter total analysis time (mean, 32.7 versus 186.9 s; P<0.001). Non-IRA with μFR >0.80 and deferred percutaneous coronary intervention had a significantly lower risk of vessel-oriented composite outcome than non-IRA with performed percutaneous coronary intervention (3.4% versus 10.5%; hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.14-0.99]; P=0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with multivessel AMI, μFR of non-IRA showed acceptable diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of QFR to predict FFR ≤0.80. Deferred non-IRA with μFR >0.80 showed a lower risk of vessel-oriented composite outcome than revascularized non-IRA.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.

Nomogram to Predict Outcomes After Staged Revascularization in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Objective

Approximately 50% of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients have multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). The management strategy for these patients remains controversial. This study aimed to develop predictive models and nomogram of outcomes in STEMI patients with MVD for better identification and classification.

Methods

The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method was used to select the features most significantly associated with the outcomes. A Cox regression model was built using the selected variables. One nomogram was computed from each model, and individual risk scores were obtained by applying the nomograms to the cohort. After regrouping patients based on nomogram risk scores into low- and high-risk groups, we used the Kaplan-Meier method to perform survival analysis.

Results

The C-index of the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-free survival model was 0·68 (95% CI 0·62-0·74) and 0·65 [0·62-0·68]) at internal validation, and that of the overall survival model was 0·75 (95% CI 0·66-0·84) and (0·73 [0·65-0·81]). The predictions of both models correlated with the observed outcomes. Low-risk patients had significantly lower probabilities of 1-year or 3-year MACEs (4% versus 11%, P= 0.003; 7% versus 15%, P=0.01, respectively) and 1-year or 3-year all-cause death (1% versus 3%, P=0.048; 2% versus 7%, respectively, P=0.001) than high-risk patients.

Conclusion

Our nomograms can be used to predict STEMI and MVD outcomes in a simple and practical way for patients who undergo primary PCI for culprit vessels and staged PCI for non-culprit vessels.

Consensus document on the clinical application of invasive functional coronary angiography from the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics

Invasive functional coronary angiography (FCA), an angiography-derived physiological index of the functional significance of coronary obstruction, is a novel physiological assessment tool for coronary obstruction that does not require the utilization of a pressure wire. This technology enables operators to rapidly evaluate the functional relevance of coronary stenoses during and even after angiography while reducing the burden of cost and complication risks related to the pressure wire. FCA can be used for treatment decision-making for revascularization, strategy planning for percutaneous coronary intervention, and procedure optimization. Currently, various software-computing FCAs are available worldwide, with unique features in their computation algorithms and functions. With the emerging application of this novel technology in various clinical scenarios, the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics task force was created to outline expert consensus on the clinical use of FCA. This consensus document advocates optimal clinical applications of FCA according to currently available evidence while summarizing the concept, history, limitations, and future perspectives of FCA along with globally available software.

Comparison among various physiology and angiography-guided strategies for deferring percutaneous coronary intervention: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

It is unclear whether coronary physiology or coronary angiography (CA)-guided strategy is the more preferable approach for deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy of various PCI strategies through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS/MATERIALS

We searched multiple databases for RCTs investigating the impact of the following strategies for the purpose of determining whether or not to defer PCI: fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, quantitative flow ratio (QFR), and CA. We conducted a network meta-analysis for trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis. We performed a subgroup analysis for those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

RESULTS

Our search identified 12 eligible RCTs including a total of 13,177 patients. QFR-guided PCI was associated with reduced MACE, MI, and TLR compared with CA-guided PCI (relative risk (RR) 0.68; 95 % confidence interval (CI] [0.49 to 0.94], RR 0.58; 95 % CI [0.36 to 0.96], and RR 0.58; 95 % CI [0.38 to 0.91], respectively). There were no significant differences in any pairs for all-cause death, cardiovascular death, or stent thrombosis. QFR was ranked the best in most outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of the ACS cohort, there were no significant differences in MACE between any comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

QFR was associated with reduced MACE, MI, and TLR compared with CA, and ranked the best in most outcomes. However, this was not applied in the ACS cohort.

Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease

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

The Evolving Field of Acute Coronary Syndrome Management: A Critical Appraisal of the 2023 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS), encompassing conditions like ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), represent a significant challenge in cardiovascular care due to their complex pathophysiology and substantial impact on morbidity and mortality. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for ACS management introduce several updates in key areas such as invasive treatment timing in NSTE-ACS, pre-treatment strategies, approaches to multivessel disease, and the use of imaging modalities including computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and intracoronary imaging techniques, such as optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). They also address a modulation of antiplatelet therapy, taking into consideration different patient risk profiles, and introduce new recommendations for low-dose colchicine. These guidelines provide important evidence-based updates in practice, reflecting an evolution in the understanding and management of ACS, yet some potentially missed opportunities for more personalized care and technology adoption are discussed.

The role of physiology in the contemporary management of coronary artery disease

Coronary physiology assessment, including epicardial and microvascular investigations, is a fundamental tool in the contemporary management of patients with coronary artery disease. Coronary revascularisation guided by functional evaluation has demonstrated superiority over angiography-only-guided treatment. In patients with chronic coronary syndrome, revascularisation did not demonstrate prognostic advantage in terms of mortality over optimal medical therapy (OMT). However, revascularisation of coronary stenosis, which induces myocardial ischaemia, has demonstrated better outcome than OMT alone. Pressure wire (PW) or angiography-based longitudinal coronary physiology provides a point-by-point analysis of the vessel to detect the atherosclerotic pattern of coronary disease. A careful evaluation of this disease pattern allows clinicians to choose the appropriate management strategy.Patients with diffuse disease showed a twofold risk of residual angina after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than those with focal disease. Therefore, OMT alone or coronary artery bypass graft might be considered over PCI. In addition, the post-PCI physiological assessment aims to optimise the result revealing residual myocardial ischaemia. Improvement in post-PCI PW or angiography-based functional indices has been associated with better quality of life and reduced risk of cardiac events and residual angina. Therefore, the information obtained from coronary physiology allows for an optimised treatment strategy, which ultimately leads to improve patient's prognosis and quality of life. This review provides an overview of the latest available evidence in the literature regarding the use of functional assessment of epicardial coronary stenosis in different settings in the contemporary patient-tailored management of coronary disease.

[Management of acute coronary syndrome : ESC guidelines 2023]

The new guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) on the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in 2023 encompass updates for both the guidelines pertaining to ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and acute coronary syndrome without ST segment elevation (NSTE-ACS). The previously separated guidelines from 2017 and 2020 were therefore revised and summarized. These guidelines address various topics, including diagnostics, acute management, antithrombotic treatment, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, invasive strategies, and long-term treatment. The notable updates compared to earlier guidelines address the recommendation regarding the timing of invasive diagnostics in NSTE-ACS (Non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome), the procedure of revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease and alternative regimens for antithrombotic treatment in patients with a high risk of bleeding.

Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Treatment for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Prespecified Analysis of the FRAME-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Complete revascularization by non-infarct-related artery (IRA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction is standard practice to improve patient prognosis. However, it is unclear whether a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided or angiography-guided treatment strategy for non-IRA PCI would be more cost-effective.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this prespecified cost-effectiveness analysis of the FRAME-AMI randomized clinical trial, patients were randomly allocated to either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions between August 19, 2016, and December 24, 2020. Patients were aged 19 years or older, had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI and underwent successful primary or urgent PCI, and had at least 1 non-IRA lesion (diameter stenosis >50% in a major epicardial coronary artery or major side branch with a vessel diameter of ≥2.0 mm). Data analysis was performed on August 27, 2023.

Intervention

Fractional flow reserve-guided vs angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The model simulated death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Future medical costs and benefits were discounted by 4.5% per year. The main outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of FFR-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. State-transition Markov models were applied to the Korean, US, and European health care systems using medical cost (presented in US dollars), utilities data, and transition probabilities from meta-analysis of previous trials.

Results

The FRAME-AMI trial randomized 562 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (11.4) years. Most patients were men (474 [84.3%]). Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI increased QALYs by 0.06 compared with angiography-guided PCI. The total cumulative cost per patient was estimated as $1208 less for FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI. The ICER was -$19 484 and the INB was $3378, indicating that FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed consistent results and the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness in FFR-guided PCI was 97%. When transition probabilities from the pairwise meta-analysis of the FLOWER-MI and FRAME-AMI trials were used, FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI in the Korean, US, and European health care systems, with an INB of $3910, $8557, and $2210, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness with FFR-guided PCI was 85%, 82%, and 31% for the Korean, US, and European health care systems, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that FFR-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions saved medical costs and increased quality of life better than angiography-guided PCI for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI should be considered in determining the treatment strategy for non-IRA stenoses in these patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02715518.

Prognostic role of discordance between quantitative flow ratio and visual estimation in revascularization guidance

Aims

Revascularization guided by functional severity has presented improved outcomes compared with visual angiographic guidance. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a reliable angiography-based method for functional assessment. We sought to investigate the prognostic value of discordance between QFR and visual estimation in coronary revascularization guidance.

Methods and results

We performed offline QFR analysis on all-comers undergoing coronary angiography. Vessels with calculated QFR were divided into four groups based on the decision to perform or defer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and on the QFR result, i.e.: Group A (PCI-, QFR > 0.8); Group B (PCI+, QFR ≤ 0.8); Group C (PCI+, QFR > 0.8); Group D (PCI-, QFR ≤ 0.8). Patients with at least one vessel falling within the disagreement groups formed the discordance group, whereas the remaining patients formed the concordance group. The primary endpoint was the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischaemia-driven revascularization. Overall, 546 patients were included in the study. Discordance between QFR and visual estimation was found in 26.2% of patients. After a median follow-up period of 2.5 years, the discordance group had a significantly higher rate of the composite outcome (hazard ratio: 3.34, 95% confidence interval 1.99-5.60, P < 0.001). Both disagreement vessel Groups C and D were associated with increased cardiovascular risk compared with agreement Groups A and B.

Conclusion

Discordance between QFR and visual estimation in revascularization guidance was associated with a worse long-term prognosis. Our results highlight the importance of proper patient selection for intervention and the need to avoid improper stent implantations when not dictated by a comprehensive functional assessment.

Angiographic Severity of the Nonculprit Lesion and the Efficacy of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Complete Revascularization in Patients With AMI: FRAME-AMI Substudy

BACKGROUND

The benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for noninfarct-related artery (IRA) lesions with angiographically severe stenosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction is unclear.

METHODS

Among 562 patients from the FRAME-AMI trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non-Infraction Related Artery Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) who were randomly allocated into either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions, the current study evaluated the relationship between non-IRA stenosis measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and the efficacy of FFR-guided PCI. The incidence of the primary end point (death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) was compared between FFR- and angiography-guided PCI according to non-IRA stenosis severity (QCA stenosis ≥70% or <70%).

RESULTS

A total of 562 patients were assigned to FFR-guided (n=284) versus angiography-guided PCI (n=278). At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary end point occurred in 14 of 181 patients with FFR-guided PCI and 31 of 197 patients with angiography-guided PCI among patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (8.5% versus 19.2%; hazard ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.22-0.80]; P=0.008), while occurred in 4 of 103 patients with FFR-guided PCI and 9 of 81 patients with angiography-guided PCI among those with QCA stenosis <70% (3.9% versus 11.1%; P=0.315). There was no significant interaction between treatment strategy and non-IRA stenosis severity (P for interaction=0.636). FFR-guided PCI was associated with the reduction of death and myocardial infarction in both patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (6.7% versus 15.1%; P=0.008) and those with QCA stenosis <70% (1.0% versus 9.6%; P=0.042) compared with angiography-guided PCI.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, FFR-guided PCI tended to have a lower risk of primary end point than angiography-guided PCI regardless of non-IRA stenosis severity without significant interaction.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.

Comparison of Intravascular Imaging, Functional, or Angiographically Guided Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it remains unclear whether intravascular imaging guidance or functional guidance is the best strategy to optimize outcomes and if the results are different in patients with vs without acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes with imaging-guided PCI or functionally guided PCI when compared with conventional angiography-guided PCI.

METHODS

We searched PUBMED and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials investigating outcomes with intravascular imaging-guided, functionally guided, or angiography-guided PCI. The primary outcome from this network meta-analysis was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). PCI strategies were ranked (best to worst) using P scores.

RESULTS

Our search identified 32 eligible randomized controlled trials and included a total of 22,684 patients. Compared with angiography-guided PCI, intravascular imaging-guided PCI was associated with reduced risk of MACE (relative risk [RR]: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.62-0.82), cardiovascular death (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.42-0.75), MI (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.66-0.99), stent thrombosis (RR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.31-0.73), and TLR (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.57-0.99). Similarly, when compared with angiography-guided PCI, functionally guided PCI was associated with reduced risk of MACE and MI. Intravascular imaging-guided PCI ranked first for the outcomes of MACE, cardiovascular death, stent thrombosis, and TLR. The results were consistent in the ACS and non-ACS cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Angiography-guided PCI had consistently worse outcomes compared with intravascular imaging-guided and functionally guided PCI. Intravascular imaging-guided PCI was the best strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.

Practical Application of Coronary Physiologic Assessment: Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Document: Part 2

Coronary physiologic assessment is performed to measure coronary pressure, flow, and resistance or their surrogates to enable the selection of appropriate management strategy and its optimization for patients with coronary artery disease. The value of physiologic assessment is supported by a large body of clinical data that has led to major recommendations in all practice guidelines. This expert consensus document aims to convey practical and balanced recommendations and future perspectives for coronary physiologic assessment for physicians and patients in the Asia-Pacific region, based on updated information in the field that includes both wire- and image-based physiologic assessment. This is Part 2 of the whole consensus document, which provides theoretical and practical information on physiologic indexes for specific clinical conditions and patient statuses.

QFR Assessment and Prognosis After Nonculprit PCI in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Complete revascularization using either angiography-guided or fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy can improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, there is concern that angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may result in un-necessary PCI of the non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA), and its long-term prognosis is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes after non-IRA PCI according to the quantitative flow ratio (QFR).

METHODS

We performed post hoc QFR analysis of non-IRA lesions of AMI patients enrolled in the FRAME-AMI (FFR Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of AMI With Multivessel Disease) trial, which randomly allocated 562 patients into either FFR-guided PCI (FFR ≤0.80) or angiography-guided PCI (diameter stenosis >50%) for non-IRA lesions. Patients were classified by non-IRA QFR values into the QFR ≤0.80 and QFR >0.80 groups. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

A total of 443 patients (552 lesions) were eligible for QFR analysis. Of 209 patients in the angiography-guided PCI group, 30.0% (n = 60) underwent non-IRA PCI despite having QFR >0.80 in the non-IRA. Conversely, only 2.7% (n = 4) among 209 patients in the FFR-guided PCI group had QFR >0.80 in the non-IRA. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the rate of MACEs was significantly higher among patients with non-IRA PCI despite QFR >0.80 than in patients with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions (12.9% vs 3.1%; HR: 4.13; 95% CI: 1.10-15.57; P = 0.036). Non-IRA PCI despite QFR >0.80 was associated with a higher risk of non-IRA MACEs than patients with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions (12.9% vs 2.1%; HR: 5.44; 95% CI: 1.13-26.19; P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

In AMI patients with multivessel disease, 30.0% of angiography-guided PCI resulted in un-necessary PCI for the non-IRA with QFR >0.80, which was significantly associated with an increased risk of MACEs than in those with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions. (FFR Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of AMI With Multivessel Disease [FRAME-AMI] ClinicalTrials.gov number; NCT02715518).

#FullPhysiology: a systematic step-by-step guide to implement intracoronary physiology in daily practice

#FullPhysiology is a comprehensive and systematic approach to evaluate patients with suspected coronary disease using PressureWire technology (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). This advancement in technology enables the investigation of each component of the coronary circulation, including epicardial, microvascular, and vasomotor function, without significantly increasing procedural time or technical complexity. By identifying the predominant physiopathology responsible for myocardial ischemia, #FullPhysiology enhances precision medicine by providing accurate diagnosis and facilitating tailored interventional or medical treatments. This overview aims to provide insights into modern coronary physiology and describe a systematic approach to assess epicardial flow-limiting disease, longitudinal physiological vessel analysis, microvascular and vasomotor dysfunction, as well as post- percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) physiological results.

Moving toward Precision Medicine in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Multimodal Assessment of Non-Culprit Lesions

Patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease experience several recurrent adverse events that lead to poor outcomes. Given the complexity of treating these patients, and the extremely high risk of long-term adverse events, the assessment of non-culprit lesions becomes crucial. Recently, two trials have shown a possible clinical benefit into treat non-culprit lesions using a fraction flow reserve (FFR)-guided approach, compared to culprit-lesion-only PCI. However, the most recent FLOW Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (FLOWER-MI) trial did not show a benefit of the use of FFR-guided PCI compared to an angiography-guided approach. Otherwise, intracoronary imaging using optical coherence tomography (OCT), intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), or near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) could provide both quantitative and qualitative assessments of non-culprit lesions. Different studies have shown how the characterization of coronary lesions with intracoronary imaging could lead to clinical benefits in these peculiar group of patients. Moreover, non-invasive evaluations of NCLs have begun to take ground in this context, but more insights through adequately powered and designed studies are needed. The aim of this review is to outline the available techniques, both invasive and non-invasive, for the assessment of multivessel disease in patients with STEMI, and to provide a systematic guidance on the assessment and approach to these patients.

Complete revascularization in acute myocardial infarction: a clinical review

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

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

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