Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Optimal Medical Therapy in Patients with Chronic Total Occlusion: A Meta-Analysis

Background/Objectives: Chronic total occlusion (CTO) is a prevalent finding in patients with coronary artery disease and is associated with increased mortality. Prior reports on the efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to optimal medical therapy (OMT) were controversial. Following the emergence of recently published new evidence, a meta-analysis is warranted. The current meta-analysis assessed the effects of PCI compared to OMT in the treatment of CTO. Methods: A structured literature search was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies of interventions were eligible. The primary outcome was an accumulated composite of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction and target vessel/lesion revascularization events. Results: Thirty-two studies reporting on 11260 patients were included. Of these, 5712 (50.7%) were assigned to the PCI and 5548 (49.3%) were allocated to the OMT group. The primary outcome occurred in 14.6% of the PCI and 20.1% of the OMT group (12 trials, OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88, p = 0.005, I2 = 67%). Subgrouping demonstrated a consistent reduction in the primary outcome for the PCI group in RCTs (six trials, OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99, p = 0.05). The primary outcome reduction was irrespective of the study design, and it was replicable in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Advantages in other outcomes were rather related to statistical pooling effects and dominated by observational data. Conclusions: CTO-PCI was associated with improved patient-oriented primary outcome compared to OMT in a study-level meta-analysis. This composite outcome effect was mainly driven by target vessel treatment, but a significant reduction in mortality and myocardial infarction was observed, irrespectively. These findings have hypothesis-generating implications. Future RCTs with adequate statistical power are eagerly awaited.

[Preclinical loading in patients with acute chest pain and acute coronary syndrome - PRELOAD survey]

BACKGROUND

Guidelines on myocardial infarction (MI) recommend antithrombotic and anticoagulatory treatment at time of diagnosis. MI with ST segment elevation (STEMI) is mostly a certain diagnosis. Acute coronary syndrome without ST segment elevation (NSTE-ACS) has diagnostic uncertainty and remains a working diagnosis in the prehospital setting.

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of prehospital loading with aspirin and heparin depending on ACS subtype and pretreatment with oral anticoagulants.

METHODS

The PRELOAD survey was a nationwide German study. STEMI/NSTE-ACS scenarios were designed and varied in pretreatment: I) no pretreatment, II) new oral anticoagulants (NOAC), III) vitamin K antagonist (VKA). Loading strategy was assessed and included: a) aspirin (ASA), b) unfractionated heparin (UFH), c) ASA + UFH, d) no loading.

RESULTS

A total of 708 emergency physicians were included. In NSTE-ACS without pretreatment, 79% chose loading (p < 0.001). ASA + UFH (71.4%) was the preferred option. In corresponding STEMI scenario, 100% chose loading and 98.6% preferred ASA + UFH (p < 0.001). In NSTE-ACS with NOAC pretreatment, 69.8% favored loading (p < 0.001); in VKA pretreatment the corresponding rate was 72.3% (p < 0.001). In each scenario, ASA was the preferred option. In STEMI with NOAC pretreatment, 97.5% chose loading (p < 0.001); analogous rate was 96.8% in STEMI with VKA pretreatment (p < 0.001). ASA was the preferred option again.

CONCLUSIONS

Prehospital loading was the preferred treatment strategy despite the diagnostic uncertainty in NSTE-ACS and guidelines recommending loading at time of diagnosis. Pretreatment with oral anticoagulants resulted in a strategy shift to loading with only aspirin. In STEMI patients, this indicates potential undertreatment.

Restrictive versus high-dose oxygenation strategy in post-arrest management following adult non-traumatic cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Neurological damage is the main cause of death or withdrawal of care in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest (CA). Hypoxemia and hyperoxemia following CA were described as potentially harmful, but reports were inconsistent. Current guidelines lack specific oxygen targets after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).

OBJECTIVES

The current meta-analysis assessed the effects of restrictive compared to high-dose oxygenation strategy in survivors of CA.

METHODS

A structured literature search was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two competing oxygenation strategies in post-ROSC management after CA were eligible. The primary end point was short-term survival (≤ 90 days). The meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42023444513).

RESULTS

Eight RCTs enrolling 1941 patients were eligible. Restrictive oxygenation was applied to 964 patients, high-dose regimens were used in 977 participants. Short-term survival rate was 55.7% in restrictive and 56% in high-dose oxygenation group (8 trials, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10, P = 0.90, I2 = 18%, no difference). No evidence for a difference was detected in survival to hospital discharge (5 trials, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, P = 0.84, I2 = 32%). Episodes of hypoxemia more frequently occurred in restrictive oxygenation group (4 trials, RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.89, P = 0.004, I2 = 13%).

CONCLUSION

Restrictive and high-dose oxygenation strategy following CA did not result in differences in short-term or in-hospital survival. Restrictive oxygenation strategy may increase episodes of hypoxemia, even with restrictive oxygenation targets exceeding intended saturation levels, but the clinical relevance is unknown. There is still a wide gap in the evidence of optimized oxygenation in post-ROSC management and specific targets cannot be concluded from the current evidence.

Optical coherence tomography-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is standard of care in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) suitable for interventional revascularization. Intracoronary imaging by optical coherence tomography (OCT) expanded treatment approaches adding diagnostic information and contributing to stent optimization.

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of OCT-guided vs. angiography-guided PCI in treatment of ACS.

METHODS

A structured literature search was performed. All controlled trials evaluating OCT-guided vs. angiography-guided PCI in patients with ACS were eligible. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

RESULTS

Eight studies enrolling 2612 patients with ACS were eligible. 1263 patients underwent OCT-guided and 1,349 patients angiography-guided PCI. OCT guidance was associated with a 30% lower likelihood of MACE (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.93, p = 0.01, I² = 1%). OCT-guided PCI was also associated with significantly decreased cardiac mortality (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.96, p = 0.04, I² = 0%). There was no detectable difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.51-2.31, p = 0.83, I² = 0). Patients in OCT-guided group less frequently required target lesion revascularization (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.95, p = 0.04, I² = 0%). Analysis of myocardial infarction did not result in significant treatment differences. In subgroup or sensitivity analysis the observed advantages of OCT-guided PCI were not replicable.

CONCLUSION

The evidence suggests that PCI guidance with OCT in ACS decreases MACE, cardiac death and target lesion revascularization compared to angiography. On individual study level, in subgroup or sensitivity analyses these advantages were not thoroughly replicable.

Multicenter Experience of Upper Extremity Access in Complex Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

Upper extremity access (UEA) for antegrade cannulation of aortic side branches is a relevant part of endovascular treatment of complex aortic aneurysms and can be achieved using several techniques, sites and sides. The purpose of this study was to evaluate different UEA strategies in a multicenter registry of complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

In six aortic centers in the Netherlands, all endovascular aortic procedures from 2006 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who received upper extremity access during complex EVAR were included. Primary outcome was a composite endpoint of any access complication, excluding minor hematomas. Secondary outcomes were access characteristics, access complications considered individually, access reinterventions and incidence of ischemic cerebrovascular events.

RESULTS

417 patients underwent 437 UEA for 303 fenestrated/branched EVARs, and 114 chimney EVARs. Twenty patients had bilateral, 295 left-sided, and 102 right-sided UEA. 413 approaches were performed surgically and 24 percutaneously. Distal brachial access was used in 89 cases, medial brachial in 149, proximal brachial in 140 and axillary access in 59 cases. No significant differences regarding the composite endpoint of access complications were seen (DBA 11.3% vs. MBA 6.7% vs. PBA 13.6% vs. AA 10.2%; p=.29). Postoperative neuropathy occurred most after proximal brachial access (DBA 1.1% vs. MBA 1.3% vs. PBA 9.3 % vs. AA 5.1%; p=.003). There were no differences in cerebrovascular complications between access sides (right 5.9% vs. left 4.1% vs. bilateral 5%; p=.75). Significantly more overall access complications were seen after a percutaneous approach (29.2% vs. 6.8%; p=.002). In multivariate analysis the risk for access complications after open approach was decreased by male gender (OR 0.27; CI 95% 0.10 - 0.72; p= .009), while an increase in age per year (OR 1.08; CI 95% 1.004 - 1.179; p=.039) and diabetes mellitus type 2 (OR 3.70; CI 95% 1.20 - 11.41; p= .023) increased the risk.

CONCLUSION

Between the four access localizations, there were no differences in overall access complications. Female gender, diabetes mellitus type 2 and ageing increased the risk for access complications after surgical approach. Furthermore, a percutaneous upper extremity access resulted in higher complication rates than a surgical approach.