Completeness of revascularisation in acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease

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

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Long-term clinical outcomes in patients with non-ST-segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 0 flow

Background

Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 0 flow often characterizes ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) patients, but may also feature in non-ST-segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Since recanalization usually occurs later in NSTE-ACS patients, the aim of this study was to assess whether patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and TIMI 0 flow have worse clinical outcomes as compared to patients presenting with STEMI and TIMI 0 flow.

Methods

A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted with patients treated for NSTE-ACS and STEMI with TIMI 0 flow at diagnostic angiogram between January 2015 and December 2019. The two patient groups were 1:1 matched using a propensity score logistic regression model. The primary outcome was Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE), a composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft, urgent target vessel revascularization or stroke during long term follow-up.

Results

The total population consisted of 1255 ACS patients, of which 249 NSTE-ACS and 1006 STEMI patients. After propensity score matching, 234 NSTE-ACS patients were matched with 234 STEMI patients. In this matched population, the mean age was 62.6 (±12.4) years and 75.2 % of the patients was male. The median follow-up time was 3.2 years. MACE rates during follow-up were similar between the two matched groups (HR = 0.84 [95 % CI 0.60 - 1.12] with p = 0.33) with cumulative event-free survival of 63.3 % in the NSTE-ACS group vs 59.3 % in the STEMI group at 6 year follow-up.

Conclusion

In this retrospective study, a culprit lesion with TIMI 0 flow has similar clinical outcome in NSTE-ACS and STEMI patients. Further research is warranted to determine optimal the timing of PCI in NSTE-ACS patients with TIMI 0 flow.

The impact of on-site cardiac surgical backup on clinical outcomes of acute coronary syndrome-analysis of the ACSIS national registry

Background

The availability of advanced technologies for mechanical support in hospitals with on-site cardiac surgery (CS), along with the ability to perform urgent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, may result in improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the bi-annually Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey (ACSIS) registry from the year 2000 to 2020, performed in hospitals with and without CS. Mortality rates and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rates are reported. We evaluated two periods of the study-early (2000-2010) vs. late (2011-2020). Propensity score matching was performed to reduce bias between the two groups.

Results

The study included 16,979 patients (52.3% in the on-site CS group). Patients in the on-site CS group were more likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), (odds ratio [OR], 1.26 [95% CI, 1.18-1.35]; p < 0.001) and CABG [OR, 1.91 (95%CI, 1.63-2.24); P < 0.001], and patients in hospitals without on-site CS had higher 30-day MACCE [OR, 1.17 (95% CI, 1.07-1.27); p < 0.0005]. Overall, there was no difference in 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98 [95% CI, 0.89-1.08]; p = 0.71) between the groups. During the late period of the study, patients in the group without on-site CS had lower 30-day mortality [OR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.49-0.97); P = 0.04], yet with no difference in 1-year mortality [HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.65-1.01); p = 0.07].

Conclusions

The availability of on-site CS resulted in variations in treatment modality, yet it did not affect the clinical outcomes of ACS. A trend to a better short-term outcomes was noted in hospitals without CS during the late period of the study, which warrants further investigation.

Multivessel spontaneous coronary artery dissection: Clinical features, angiographic findings, management, and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a rare cause of acute coronary syndrome. Multivessel (MV) SCAD is a challenging clinical presentation that might be associated to a worse prognosis compared with patients with single-vessel (SV) involvement.

METHODS

The Spanish multicentre nationwide prospective SCAD registry included 389 consecutive patients. Patients were classified, according to the number of affected vessels, in SV or MV SCAD. Major adverse events (MAE) were analyzed during hospital stay and major cardiac or cerebrovascular adverse events (MACCE) at long-term clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients (10.5%) presented MV SCAD. These patients had more frequently a previous history of hypothyroidism (22% vs 11%, p = 0.04) and anxiety disorder (32% vs 16%, p = 0.01). MV SCAD patients presented more often as non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (73% vs 52%, p = 0.01) and showed less frequently type 1 angiographic lesions (12% vs 21%, p = 0.04). An impaired initial Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow 0-1 was less frequent (14% vs 29%, p < 0.01) in MV SCAD. In both groups, most patients were treated conservatively (71% vs 79%, p = NS). No differences were found regarding in-hospital MAE or MACCE at late follow-up (median 29 ± 11 months). However, the rate of stroke was higher in MV SCAD patients, both in-hospital (2.4% vs 0%, p < 0.01) and at follow-up (5.1% vs 0.6%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with MV SCAD have some distinctive clinical and angiographic features. Although composite clinical outcomes, in-hospital and at long-term follow-up, were similar to those seen in patients with SV SCAD, stroke rate was significantly higher in patients with MV SCAD.

Multivessel vs. culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention strategy in older adults with acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The optima revascularization strategy for senior patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the context of multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) remains unclear. We aimed to compare a strategy of culprit-vessel (CV) vs. multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) in older adults (≥75 years) with AMI.

METHODS

We analyzed four randomized controlled trials designed to include older adults with AMI. The primary endpoint was all-cause death. The secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and major bleeding (Net Adverse Clinical Events, NACE). A non-parsimonious propensity score and nearest-neighbor matching was performed to account for bias.

RESULTS

A total of 1,334 trial participants were included; of them, 770 (57.7%) underwent CV-PCI and 564 (42.3%) a MV-PCI strategy. After a median follow-up of 365 days, patients treated with MV-PCI experienced a lower rate of death (6.0% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.01) and of NACE (11.2% vs. 15.5%; p = 0.016). After multivariable analysis, MV-PCI was independently associated with a lower hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-0.96; p = 0.03) and NACE (NACE 0.72[0.53-0.98]; p = 0.04). These results were confirmed in a matched propensity analysis, were consistent throughout the spectrum of older age and when analyzed by subgroups and when immortal-time bias was considered.

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of older adults with MVCAD who were managed invasively for AMI, a MV-PCI strategy to pursue complete revascularization was associated with better survival and lower risk of NACE compared to a CV-PCI. Adequately sized RCTs are required to confirm these findings.

When to Achieve Complete Revascularization in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition frequently encountered in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Despite prompt revascularization, in particular, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and therapeutic and technological advances, the mortality rate for patients with CS related to AMI remains unacceptably high. Differently form a hemodynamically stable setting, a culprit lesion-only (CLO) revascularization strategy is currently suggested for AMI–CS patients, based on the results of recent randomized evidence burdened by several limitations and conflicting results from non-randomized studies. Furthermore, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have emerged as a key therapeutic option in CS, especially in the case of their early implantation without delaying revascularization and before irreversible organ damage has occurred. We provide an in-depth review of the current evidence on optimal revascularization strategies of multivessel CAD in infarct-related CS, assessing the role of different types of MCS devices and highlighting the importance of shock teams and medical care system networks to effectively impact on clinical outcomes.