Impact of Intravascular Imaging-Guided Stent Optimization According to Clinical Presentation in Patients Undergoing Complex PCI

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether the beneficial effects of intravascular imaging-guided stent optimization vary by clinical presentation during complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

OBJECTIVES

In this prespecified, stratified subgroup analysis from RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex PCI), we sought to compare the outcomes between intravascular imaging vs angiography guidance according to clinical presentation.

METHODS

Patients with complex coronary artery lesions were randomly assigned to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI in a 2:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), which is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

Of 1,639 patients, 832 (50.8%) presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and 807 (49.2%) with chronic coronary syndrome. During a median follow-up of 2.1 years (Q1-Q3: 1.4-3.0 years), there was no significant interaction between the treatment effect of intravascular imaging and clinical presentation (P for interaction = 0.19). Among patients with ACS, the incidences of TVF were 10.4% in the intravascular imaging group and 14.6% in the angiography group (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.48-1.15; P = 0.18). Among patients with CCS, the incidences of TVF were 5.0% in the intravascular imaging group and 10.4% in the angiography group (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.27-0.80; P = 0.006). Achieving stent optimization by intravascular imaging resulted in a reduced risk of TVF among patients with ACS who were randomly assigned to intravascular imaging-guided PCI for complex coronary lesions (optimized vs unoptimized, 6.5% vs 14.1%; HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27-0.87; P = 0.02) but not those with CCS (5.4% vs 4.7%, HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.53-2.59; P = 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant interaction was observed between the benefits of intravascular imaging and clinical presentation in the risk of TVF. Stent optimization by intravascular imaging was particularly important for ACS patients. (Intravascular Imaging- Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention For Complex Coronary Artery Disease [RENOVATE]; NCT03381872).

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.

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

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

Clinical Outcome of Revascularization Deferral With Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve: A 5-Year Follow-Up Substudy From the iFR-SWEDEHEART Trial

Background Although physiology-based assessment of coronary artery stenosis using instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) are established methods of guiding coronary revascularization, its clinical outcome in long-term deferral needs further evaluation, especially with acute coronary syndrome as a clinical presentation. The aim was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcome of deferral of revascularization based on iFR or FFR. Methods and Results This is a substudy of the iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trial, where patients deferred from revascularization from each study arm were selected. Nine hundred eight patients deferred from coronary revascularization with iFR (n=473) and FFR (n=435) were followed for 5 years. The national quality registry, SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies), was used for patient data collection and clinical follow-up. The end point was major adverse cardiac events and their individual components all-cause death, cardiovascular death, noncardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. No significant difference was found in major adverse cardiac events (iFR 18.6% versus FFR 16.8%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.79-1.48]; P=0.63) or their individual components. Conclusions No differences in clinical outcomes after 5-year follow-up were noted when comparing iFR versus FFR as methods for deferral of coronary revascularization in patients presenting with stable angina pectoris and acute coronary syndrome. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02166736.

Angiography versus FFR guided complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization for patients presenting with STEMI: Network meta-analysis

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of different revascularization strategies among patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). MVD is present in about one-half of patients presenting with STEMI. Despite several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing complete revascularization (CR) and culprit-only revascularization (COR), the optimal PCI strategy for STEMI patients with MVD remains unsettled. Moreover, it is unclear whether angiography-guided CR or fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided CR is associated with better outcomes. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs comparing CR strategies with COR strategy in patients with STEMI between January 1, 2000 and September 30, 2021 were identified. A frequentist network meta-analyses were performed for three PCI strategies: (1) COR; (2) angiography-guided CR; and (3) FFR-guided CR. Ten RCTs including 7979 patients were included. A strategy of angiography-guided CR or FFR-guided CR was associated with a significantly lower rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and unplanned revascularization compared with COR. Although there were no statistical significant difference between angiography-guided CR and FFR-guided CR, P score analysis showed that angiography-guided CR was ranked as the best strategy for reducing MACE, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. In patients presenting with STEMI and MVD undergoing primary PCI, angiography-guided CR or FFR-guided CR improve outcomes compared with COR. Furthermore, the strategy of angiography-guided CR ranked as the best revascularization strategy in those patients.

Instantaneous wave-free ratio for guiding treatment of nonculprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze the feasibility of a physiological coronary evaluation with the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) of nonculprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) successfully revascularized.

METHODS

A multicenter registry including patients of four high-volume PCI centers with ACS and underwent successful revascularization of the culprit vessel and had other nonculprit lesions that were physiologically evaluated with the iFR between January 2017 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, probable or definitive stent thrombosis and new revascularization (MACEs).

RESULTS

A total of 356 patients with 472 nonculprit lesions were included. The mean age was 66 ± 11 years. The clinical presentation was ACS without persistent ST-segment elevation (NSTE-ACS) in 235 patients (66%) and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in 121 patients (34%). After a median follow-up period of 21 (14-30) months, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 patients (9%). There were no differences in outcomes regarding clinical presentation (NSTEMI vs. NSTE-ACS, 9.1 vs. 8.9%, p_adj  = 0.570) or iFR induced treatment strategy (patients with all lesions revascularized vs. patients with at least one lesion with an iFR > 0.89 deferred for revascularization, 10.5 vs. 8.4%, p_adj  = 0.476).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the iFR to guide percutaneous coronary intervention decision making in nonculprit lesions seems to be feasible, with an acceptable percentage of MACEs at the mid-term follow-up. Patients with deferred revascularization of lesions without physiological significance and patients undergoing complete revascularization had a similar risk of MACEs.

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) identifies functional relevance of non-culprit lesions in coronary angiographies of patients with acute myocardial infarction

INTRODUCTION

In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel coronary disease, revascularization of non-culprit lesions guided by proof of ischemia usually requires staged ischemia testing. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) has been shown to be effective in assessing the hemodynamic relevance of lesions in stable coronary disease. However, its suitability in AMI patients is unknown. In this study, we tested the diagnostic value of QFR based on acute angiograms (aQFR) during AMI to assess the hemodynamic relevance of non-culprit lesions.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed the diagnostic efficiency of aQFR in 280 vessels from 220 patients, comparing it with staged ischemia testing using elective coronary angiography with FFR (n = 47), stress cardiac MRI (n = 200) or SPECT (n = 33).

RESULTS

aQFR showed a very good diagnostic efficiency (AUC = 0.887, 95% CI 0.832-0.943, p < 0.001) in predicting ischemia of non-culprit lesions, significantly superior to coronary lesion's geometry as assessed by quantitative coronary angiography. The optimal cut-off for aQFR to predict ischemia was 0.80 (sensitivity = 83.7%, specificity = 86.1%). Maintaining a predefined level of 95% sensitivity and specificity, we created a decision model based on aQFR: lesions with aQFR ≤ 0.75 should be treated, lesions with aQFR ≥ 0.92 do not yield any hemodynamic relevance, and lesions in the "grey zone" (aQFR 0.75-0.92) benefit from further ischemia testings. This model would allow to reduce staged ischemia tests by 46.8% without a relevant loss in diagnostic efficiency.

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrate that aQFR allows an effective assessment of hemodynamic relevance of non-culprit lesions in AMI and may guide interventions of non-culprit coronary lesions.

Patients with Moderate Non-Culprit Coronary Lesions of Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement was compared to dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) instable angina (SA) with stable coronary lesion (s) (SCL (s) ) in a few trials; however, similar comparisons in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with non-culprit lesion (s) (NCL (s) ) are lacking. Our objectives were to prospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of FFR with two different cutoff values (< 0.80 and < 0.75) relative to DSE in moderate (30%-70% diameter stenosis) NCLs (ACS group) and to compare these observations with those measured in SCLs (SA group). One hundred seventy-five consecutive patients with SA (n = 86) and ACS (n = 89) with 225 coronary lesions (109 SCLs and 116 NCLs) were enrolled. In contrast to the ACS cohort in SA patients, normal DSE was associated with higher FFR values compared to those with abnormal DSE (P = 0.051 versus P = 0.006). In addition, in the SA group, a significant correlation was observed between DSE (regional wall motion score index at peak stress) and FFR (r = -0.290; P = 0.002), whereas a similar association was absent (r = -0.029; P = 0.760) among ACS patients. In the SA group, decreasing the FFR cutoff value (< 0.80 versus < 0.75) improved the concordance of FFR with DSE (70.6% versus 81.7%) without altering its discriminatory power (area under the curve; 0.68 versus 0.63; P = 0.369), whereas in the ACS group, concordance remained similar (69.0% versus 71.6%) and discriminatory power decreased (0.62 versus 0.51; P = 0.049), respectively. In conclusion, lesion-specific FFR assessment may have different relevance in patients with moderate NCLs than in patients with SCLs.

Compared Outcomes of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients with Multivessel Disease Treated with Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Preserved Fractional Flow Reserve of Non-Culprit Lesions Treated Conservatively and of Those with Low Fractional Flow Reserve Managed Invasively: Insights from the FLOWER MI trial

Background: In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-culprit lesions guided by FFR is superior to treatment of the culprit lesion alone. Whether deferring non-culprit PCI is safe in this specific context is questionable. We aimed to assess clinical outcomes at one-year in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and an FFR-guided strategy for non-culprit lesions, according to whether or not ≥1 PCI was performed. Methods: Outcomes were analyzed in patients of the randomized FLOWER MI (Flow Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial in whom, after successful primary PCI, non-culprit lesions were assessed using FFR. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal MI, and unplanned hospitalization with urgent revascularization at one year. Results: Among 1,171 patients enrolled in this study, 586 were assigned to the FFR-guided group: 388 (66%) of them had ≥1 PCI and 198 (34%) had no PCI. Mean FFR before decision (i.e., PCI or not) of non-culprit lesions were 0.75±0.10 and 0.88±0.06, respectively. During follow-up, a primary outcome event occurred in 16 of 388 patients (4.1%) in patients with PCI and in 16 of 198 patients (8.1%) in patients without PCI (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.20 to 0.88; P = 0.02). Conclusions: In patients with STEMI undergoing complete revascularization guided by FFR measurement, those with ≥1 PCI had lower event rates at 1 year, compared with patients with deferred PCI, suggesting that deferring lesions judged relevant by visual estimation but with FFR >0.80 may not be optimal in this context. Future randomized studies are needed to confirm this data.

Completeness of revascularisation in acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease

A significant proportion of patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have multivessel disease (MVD). Despite the abundance of clinical trials in this area, several questions regarding the procedure of complete coronary revascularisation remain unanswered. This state-of-the-art review summarises the latest evidence on complete revascularisation (CR) in this subset of patients and critically appraises clinical decision making based on non-culprit lesion (NCL) assessment. Future areas of research are put into perspective.

Virtual (Computed) Fractional Flow Reserve: Future Role in Acute Coronary Syndromes

The current management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is with an invasive strategy to guide treatment. However, identifying the lesions which are physiologically significant can be challenging. Non-invasive imaging is generally not appropriate or timely in the acute setting, so the decision is generally based upon visual assessment of the angiogram, supplemented in a small minority by invasive pressure wire studies using fractional flow reserve (FFR) or related indices. Whilst pressure wire usage is slowly increasing, it is not feasible in many vessels, patients and situations. Limited evidence for the use of FFR in non-ST elevation (NSTE) ACS suggests a 25% change in management, compared with traditional assessment, with a shift from more to less extensive revascularisation. Virtual (computed) FFR (vFFR), which uses a 3D model of the coronary arteries constructed from the invasive angiogram, and application of the physical laws of fluid flow, has the potential to be used more widely in this situation. It is less invasive, fast and can be integrated into catheter laboratory software. For severe lesions, or mild disease, it is probably not required, but it could improve the management of moderate disease in 'real time' for patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), and in bystander disease in ST elevation myocardial infarction. Its practicability and impact in the acute setting need to be tested, but the underpinning science and potential benefits for rapid and streamlined decision-making are enticing.

Revascularization Strategies in Patients Presenting With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Disease

The optimal revascularization strategy for residual coronary stenosis following primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) remains controversial. This is a retrospective single-centre study including patients with STEMI and MVD. Based on the revascularization strategy, 3 groups were identified: (1) culprit only (CO), (2) ad hoc multivessel revascularization (MVR), and (3) staged MVR. Clinical outcomes were compared in terms of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction, and any unplanned revascularization at a long-term follow-up. A total of 958 patients were evaluated, 489 in the CO, 254 in the ad hoc, and 215 in the staged group. In the staged group, 65.6% of the patients received planned percutaneous coronary intervention, 9.7% coronary artery bypass grafting, 8.4% no further intervention after lesion reassessment, and in 16.3% an event occurred before the planned procedure. At 1,095 days, MACE was 36.1%, 16.7%, and 31% for CO, ad hoc, and staged groups, respectively. A MVR strategy was associated with lower rate of all-cause death compared with CO (HR 0.50; 95%CI [0.31 to 0.80]; p = 0.004). Complete revascularization reduced the rate of MACE (HR 0.30 [0.21 to 0.43] p < 0.001) compared with incomplete revascularization. Ad hoc MVR had lower rate of MACE compared with staged MVR (HR 0.61 [0.39 to 0.96] p = 0.032) mainly driven by less unplanned revascularizations. In conclusion, in patients with STEMI and MVD, complete revascularization reduced the risk of MACE. Ad hoc MVR appeared a reasonable strategy with lower contrast and stent usage and costs.

Clinical Usefulness of PRECISE-DAPT Score for Predicting Bleeding Events in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis From the SMART-DATE Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Although the current guidelines endorse the PRECISE-DAPT score (Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) to inform clinical decisions regarding duration of DAPT in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, use of the PRECISE-DAPT score to guide duration of DAPT has not been properly validated by randomized trials focused on the population with acute coronary syndrome. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the PRECISE-DAPT score for predicting future bleeding and ischemic events and to compare clinical outcomes of short-term and long-term DAPT duration according to the PRECISE-DAPT score in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

METHODS

This was a substudy of the SMART-DATE trial (6- Versus 12-Month or Longer Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome), in which patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly assigned to either 6- (n=1357) or 12-month or longer DAPT (n=1355). Major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5) and ischemic (myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke) events at 18 months after the index procedure were compared between the 6- and 12-month or longer DAPT groups, according to PRECISE-DAPT score.

RESULTS

The PRECISE-DAPT score was moderately effective at predicting bleeding events (area under the curve, 0.754 [95% CI, 0.655-0.854]; P<0.001). In patients with nonhigh PRECISE-DAPT score (<25, n=1967 [72.5%]), 6-month DAPT was associated with higher ischemic risk (2.7% versus 1.3%; HR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.03-3.91]; P=0.040; absolute risk difference, +1.3%; P=0.035) with similar bleeding risk (0.4% versus 0.3%; HR, 2.00 [95% CI, 0.37-10.94]; P=0.422; absolute risk difference, +0.2%; P=0.498), compared with 12-month or longer DAPT. Among patients with high PRECISE-DAPT score (≥25, n=745 [27.5%]), 6-month DAPT presented a similar ischemic risk (4.8% versus 3.4%; HR, 1.43 [95% CI, 0.68-2.98], P=0.348; absolute risk difference, +1.5%; P=0.327) but significantly reduced major bleeding risk (0.6% versus 2.3%; HR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.05-1.17]; P=0.079; absolute risk difference, -1.7%; P=0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with current guidelines, determination of the duration of DAPT according to PRECISE-DAPT score could improve the clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention with current-generation drug-eluting stents. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01701453.

Long-term outcome after deferred revascularization due to negative fractional flow reserve in intermediate coronary lesions

Objectives

The aim was to assess long‐term outcome after deferring intervention of coronary lesions with a fractional flow reserve (FFR) value of >0.80 in a real‐world patient population and then to identify factors associated with deferred target lesion failure (DTLF).

Background

Deferring coronary interventions of intermediate lesions based on FFR measurement is safe, irrespective of the extent of coronary artery disease. However, FFR values near the cut‐off of >0.80 may have less favorable outcome.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed in patients with deferred coronary intervention based on FFR value >0.80. The primary endpoint was DTLF, a composite of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and any coronary revascularization, related to the initially deferred stenosis.

Results

A total of 600 patients, mean age of 66 ± 10 years, and 751 coronary lesions with negative FFR values (mean 0.88 ± 0.04) were included. The mean follow‐up was 27 ± 15 months. DTLF occurred in 44 patients (7.3%), revascularization in 42 (7%), and ACS without revascularization in 2 patients (0.3%). Patients with DTLF more often had diabetes mellitus, previous coronary artery bypass grafting, multivessel disease (MVD), and lower FFR at inclusion. Multivariable regression analysis showed that lower deferred FFR values [FFR 0.81–0.85: hazard ratio (HR) 2.79 (95% CI [confidence interval]; 1.46–5.32), p .002], MVD [HR 1.98 (95% CI; 1.05–3.75), p .036], distal lesions [HR 2.43 (95% CI; 1.29–4.57), p .006], and lesions located in a saphenous vein graft (SVG) [HR 6.35 (95% CI; 1.81–22.28), p .004] were independent predictors for DTLF.

Conclusions

The long‐term rate of DTLF of initially deferred coronary lesions was 7.3%. Independent predictors for DTLF are lower deferred FFR value, the presence of MVD, distal lesions, and lesions in SVG.

Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

BACKGROUND

Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization.

METHODS

The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year.

RESULTS

Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year.

Influence of Local Myocardial Infarction on Endothelial Function, Neointimal Progression, and Inflammation in Target and Non-Target Vascular Territories in a Porcine Model of Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have worse clinical outcomes than those with stable coronary artery disease despite revascularization. Non-culprit lesions of AMI also involve more adverse cardiovascular events. This study aimed to investigate the influence of AMI on endothelial function, neointimal progression, and inflammation in target and non-target vessels.

METHODS

In castrated male pigs, AMI was induced by balloon occlusion and reperfusion into the left anterior descending artery (LAD). Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) were implanted in the LAD and left circumflex (LCX) artery 2 days after AMI induction. In the control group, EES were implanted in the LAD and LCX in a similar fashion without AMI induction. Endothelial function was assessed using acetylcholine infusion before enrollment, after the AMI or sham operation, and at 1 month follow-up. A histological examination was conducted 1 month after stenting.

RESULTS

A total of 10 pigs implanted with 20 EES in the LAD and LCX were included. Significant paradoxical vasoconstriction was assessed after acetylcholine challenge in the AMI group compared with the control group. In the histologic analysis, the AMI group showed a larger neointimal area and larger area of stenosis than the control group after EES implantation. Peri-strut inflammation and fibrin formation were significant in the AMI group without differences in injury score. The non-target vessel of the AMI also showed similar findings to the target vessel compared with the control group.

CONCLUSION

In the pig model, AMI events induced endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, and neointimal progression in the target and non-target vessels.

Outcome of staged percutaneous coronary intervention within two weeks from admission in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease

BACKGROUND

The optimum timing of revascularization strategy for stenoses in nonculprit vessels in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) remains unclear. At present, there is no evidence investigating the outcome of staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within two weeks from admission among STEMI patients with MVD.

METHODS

A total of 210 STEMI patients with MVD who underwent primary PCI were analyzed. We compared the all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, unstable angina, and stroke) with median follow-up of 1200 days among the patients who underwent staged PCI within two weeks from admission (staged PCI ≤2 W) (n = 75), staged PCI after two weeks from admission (staged PCI >2 W) (n = 37) and culprit-only PCI (n = 98) in patients with STEMI and MVD.

RESULTS

The staged PCI ≤2 W showed lower all-cause mortality than culprit-only PCI (4.0 vs 29.6%, log-rank P = 0.001), and lower incidence of MACE than the staged PCI >2 W group (1.3 vs 18.9%, log-rank P = 0.001) and culprit-only PCI group (1.3 vs 22.5%, log-rank P = 0.001). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, the staged PCI ≤2 W was a predictor of lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.176; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.049-0.630; P = 0.008) and lower incidence of MACE (HR, 0.068; 95% CI, 0.009-0.533; P = 0.011), but staged PCI >2 W was not.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, staged PCI within two weeks after admission showed more favorable outcomes compared with staged PCI after two weeks from admission or culprit-only PCI in STEMI patients with MVD.

Fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multi-vessel disease patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

Approximately 30–50% patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STMEI) were found to have non-infarct-related coronary artery (IRA) disease, which was significantly associated with worse prognosis. However, challenges still remain for these patients: which non-infarct-related lesion should be treated and when should the procedure be performed? The present study aims to investigate Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularization (CR) in comparison to culprit-only revascularization (COR) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multi-vessel disease (MVD).

Methods

Three appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected from the PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library /CENTRAL databases. 1631 patients (688 patients underwent FFR-guided CR and 943 patients underwent COR) following-up 12–44 months was evaluated.

Results

FFR-guided CR significantly reduced major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (OR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.35–0.62, P < 0.00001) and ischemia-driven repeat revascularization (OR 0.36, 0.26–0.51, P < 0.00001), as compared to COR. However, there is no difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.24, 0.65–2.35, P = 0.51).

Conclusions

In patients with STEMI and MVD, FFR-guided CR is better than COR in terms of MACE and ischemia-driven repeat revascularization, while there are almost similar in all-cause mortality.

Trial registration

All analyses were based on previous published studies, thus no ethical approval and patient consent are required COMPARE-ACUTE trial number NCT01399736; DANAMI-3–PRIMULTI trial number NCT01960933.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-019-1022-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Fractional flow reserve in acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

The utility of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularisation in the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unclear.

Objective

This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of patients following FFR-guided revascularisation for either ACS or stable angina (SA) and in particular focuses on the outcome of those with deferred revascularisation after FFR.

Methods

A meta-analysis of existing literature was performed. Outcomes including the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), mortality and unplanned revascularisation were analysed.

Results

A review of 937 records yielded 9 studies comparing 5457 patients, which were included in the analyses. Patients with ACS had a higher rate of recurrent MI (OR 1.81, p=0.02) and a strong trend towards more MACE and all-cause mortality compared with patients with SA when treated by an FFR-guided revascularisation strategy. Deferral of invasive therapy on the basis of FFR led to a higher rate of MACE (17.6% vs 7.3 %; p=0.004), recurrent MI (5.3% vs 1.5%, p=0.001) and target vessel revascularisation (16.4% vs 5.6 %; p=0.02) in patients with ACS, and a strong trend towards a higher cardiovascular mortality at follow-up when compared with patients with SA.

Conclusion

The event rate in patients with ACS is much higher than SA despite following an FFR-guided revascularisation strategy. Deferring revascularisation does not appear to be as safe for ACS as it is for SA using contemporary FFR cut-offs validated in SA. Refinement of the therapeutic strategy for patients with ACS with multivessel disease is needed to redress the balance.

Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Strategy in Acute Coronary Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

There are limited data on the prognosis of deferral of lesion treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) based on fractional flow reserve (FFR).

Objectives

To provide a systematic review of the current evidence on the prognosis of deferred lesions in ACS patients compared with deferred lesions in non-ACS patients, on the basis of FFR.

Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between January 2000 and September 2017 that compared prognosis of deferred revascularization of lesions on the basis of FFR in ACS patients compared with non-ACS patients. We conducted a pooled relative risk meta-analysis of four primary outcomes: mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and target-vessel revascularization (TVR).

Results

We identified 7 studies that included a total of 5,107 patients. A pooled meta-analysis showed no significant difference in mortality (relative risk [RR] = 1.44; 95% CI, 0.9-2.4), CV mortality (RR = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.4-4.3) and TVR (RR = 1.46; 95% CI = 0.9-2.3) after deferral of revascularization based on FFR between ACS and non-ACS patients. Such deferral was associated with significant additional risk of MI (RR = 1.83; 95% CI = 1.4-2.4) in ACS patients.

Conclusion

The prognostic value of FFR in ACS setting is not as good as in stable patients. The results demonstrate an increased risk of MI but not of mortality, CV mortality, and TVR in ACS patients.

Specific Pharmacological Profile of A2A Adenosine Receptor Predicts Reduced Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease

Background

The rapid and reliable exclusion of myocardial revascularization is a major unmet clinical need in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and non‐contributive electrocardiography and troponin. Non‐invasive tests have high rates of false positives and negatives, and there is no biomarker to assess myocardial ischemia. The presence of spare adenosine A_2A receptors (A_2AR)—characterized by a high dissociation constant/half maximal effective concentration (K_D/EC₅₀) ratio—expressed on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) has been associated with ischemia during exercise stress testing in patients with CAD. In this work, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of spare A_2AR versus fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with suspected CAD.

Methods and Results

Sixty patients with suspected CAD, but non‐contributive electrocardiography and troponin, were consecutively enrolled in this prospective study. The binding (K_D), functional response (cyclic adenosine monophosphate [cAMP] production; EC₅₀) on PBMC A_2AR were compared with FFR results. Patients were divided into 3 groups: 17 (group 1) with normal coronary angiography (n=13) or stenosis <20% (n=4); 21 with CAD and non‐significant FFR (group 2); and 22 with CAD and significant FFR (group 3). Median K_D/EC₅₀ was 6‐fold higher in group 3 (4.20; interquartile range: 2.81–5.00) than group 2 (0.66; interquartile range: 0.47–1.25) and 7‐fold higher than group 1 (0.60; interquartile range: 0.30–0.66).

Conclusions

In patients with suspected CAD and non‐contributive electrocardiography and troponin, the absence of spare A_2AR on PBMC may help to rule out myocardial ischemia.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03218007.