Complete Revascularization Versus Culprit-Lesion-Only PCI in STEMI Patients With Diabetes and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Results From the COMPLETE Trial

BACKGROUND

In the COMPLETE trial (Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization to Treat Multivessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI), a strategy of complete revascularization reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events compared with culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. Patients with diabetes have a worse prognosis following STEMI. We evaluated the consistency of the effects of complete revascularization in patients with and without diabetes.

METHODS

The COMPLETE trial randomized a strategy of complete revascularization, consisting of angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention of all suitable nonculprit lesions, versus a strategy of culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (guideline-directed medical therapy alone). In prespecified analyses, treatment effects were determined in patients with and without diabetes on the first coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death or new myocardial infarction and the second coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death, new myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. Interaction P values were calculated to evaluate whether there was a differential treatment effect in patients with and without diabetes.

RESULTS

Of the 4041 patients enrolled in the COMPLETE trial, 787 patients (19.5%) had diabetes. The median HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin) was 7.7% in the diabetes group and 5.7% in the nondiabetes group. Complete revascularization consistently reduced the first coprimary outcome in patients with diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.59-1.29]) and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.90]), with no evidence of a differential treatment effect (interaction P=0.36). Similarly, for the second coprimary outcome, no differential treatment effect (interaction P=0.27) of complete revascularization was found in patients with diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.43-0.87]) and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.39-0.60]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease, the benefit of complete revascularization over a culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention strategy was consistent regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.

Ultrasound-guided femoral access in patients with vascular closure devices: a prespecified analysis of the randomised UNIVERSAL trial

BACKGROUND

Whether ultrasound (US)-guided femoral access compared to femoral access without US guidance decreases access site complications in patients receiving a vascular closure device (VCD) is unclear.

AIMS

We aimed to compare the safety of VCD in patients undergoing US-guided versus non-US-guided femoral arterial access for coronary procedures.

METHODS

We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis of the UNIVERSAL trial, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of 1:1 US-guided femoral access versus non-US-guided femoral access, stratified for planned VCD use, for coronary procedures on a background of fluoroscopic landmarking. The primary endpoint was a composite of major Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 bleeding and vascular complications at 30 days.

RESULTS

Of 621 patients, 328 (52.8%) received a VCD (86% ANGIO-SEAL, 14% ProGlide). In patients who received a VCD, those randomised to US-guided femoral access compared to non-US-guided femoral access experienced a reduction in major bleeding or vascular complications (20/170 [11.8%] vs 37/158 [23.4%], odds ratio [OR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.82). In patients who did not receive a VCD, there was no difference between the US- and non-US-guided femoral access groups, respectively (20/141 [14.2%] vs 13/152 [8.6%], OR 1.76, 95% CI: 0.80-4.03; interaction p=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients receiving a VCD after coronary procedures, US-guided femoral access was associated with fewer bleeding and vascular complications compared to femoral access without US guidance. US guidance for femoral access may be particularly beneficial when VCD are used.

Effects of routine early treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), early initiation of high-intensity statin therapy, regardless of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels, is the standard of practice worldwide.  Aims: We sought to determine the effect of a similar early initiation strategy, using a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor added to the high-intensity statin, on LDL cholesterol in acute STEMI.

METHODS

In a randomised, double-blind trial we assigned 68 patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to early treatment with alirocumab 150 mg subcutaneously or to a matching sham control. The first injection was given before primary PCI regardless of the baseline LDL level, then at 2 and 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the percent reduction in direct LDL cholesterol up to 6 weeks, analysed using a linear mixed model.   Results: High-intensity statin use was 97% and 100% in the alirocumab and sham-control groups, respectively. At a median of 45 days, the primary outcome of LDL cholesterol decreased by 72.9% with alirocumab (2.97 mmol/L to 0.75 mmol/L) versus 48.1% with the sham control (2.87 mmol/L to 1.30 mmol/L), for a mean between-group difference of -22.3% (p<0.001). More patients achieved the European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society dyslipidaemia guideline target of LDL ≤1.4 mmol/L in the alirocumab group (92.1% vs 56.7%; p<0.001). Within the first 24 hours, LDL declined slightly more rapidly in the alirocumab group than in the sham-control group (-0.01 mmol/L/hour; p=0.03) with similar between-group mean values.  Conclusions: In this randomised trial of routine early initiation of PCSK9 inhibitors in patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI, alirocumab reduced LDL cholesterol by 22% compared with sham control on a background of high-intensity statin therapy. A large trial is needed to determine if this simplified approach followed by long-term therapy improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute STEMI. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03718286).

Routine Ultrasonography Guidance for Femoral Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures: The UNIVERSAL Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

A significant limitation of femoral artery access for cardiac interventions is the increased risk of vascular complications and bleeding compared with radial access. Strategies to make femoral access safer are needed.

Objective

To determine whether routinely using ultrasonography guidance for femoral arterial access for coronary angiography/intervention reduces bleeding or vascular complications.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Routine Ultrasound Guidance for Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures (UNIVERSAL) randomized clinical trial is a multicenter, prospective, open-label trial of ultrasonography-guided femoral access vs no ultrasonography for coronary angiography or intervention with planned femoral access. Patients were randomized from June 26, 2018, to April 26, 2022. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were not eligible.

Interventions

Ultrasonography guidance vs no ultrasonography guidance for femoral arterial access on a background of fluoroscopic landmarking.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary composite outcome is the composite of major bleeding based on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 criteria or major vascular complications within 30 days.

Results

A total of 621 patients were randomized at 2 centers in Canada (mean [SD] age, 71 [10.24] years; 158 [25.4%] female). The primary outcome occurred in 40 of 311 patients (12.9%) in the ultrasonography group vs 50 of 310 patients (16.1%) without ultrasonography (odds ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.49-1.20]; P = .25). The rates of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding were 10.0% (31 of 311) vs 10.7% (33 of 310) (odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.55-1.56]; P = .78). The rates of major vascular complications were 6.4% (20 of 311) vs 9.4% (29 of 310) (odds ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.37-1.20]; P = .18). Ultrasonography improved first-pass success (277 of 311 [86.6%] vs 222 of 310 [70.0%]; odds ratio, 2.76 [95% CI, 1.85-4.12]; P < .001) and reduced the number of arterial puncture attempts (mean [SD], 1.2 [0.5] vs 1.4 [0.8]; mean difference, -0.26 [95% CI, -0.37 to -0.16]; P < .001) and venipuncture (10 of 311 [3.1%] vs 37 of 310 [11.7%]; odds ratio, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.12-0.50]; P < .001) with similar times to access (mean [SD], 114 [185] vs 129 [206] seconds; mean difference, -15.1 [95% CI, -45.9 to 15.8]; P = .34). All prerandomization prespecified subgroups were consistent with the overall finding.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, use of ultrasonography for femoral access did not reduce bleeding or vascular complications. However, ultrasonography did reduce the risk of venipuncture and number of attempts. Larger trials may be required to demonstrate additional potential benefits of ultrasonography-guided access.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03537118.

Design and Rationale of Routine ltrasoud Gudance for ascular Accss fo Cardiac Procedure: Randomized Tria (UNIVERSAL)

Background

A significant limitation of femoral artery access for cardiac interventions is the increased risk of vascular complications and bleeding compared to radial access. Ultrasound (US)-guided femoral access may reduce major vascular complications and bleeding. We aim to determine whether routinely using US guidance for femoral arterial access for coronary angiography or intervention will reduce Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding or major vascular complications.

Methods

The Ultrasound Guidance for Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures: A Randomized Trial (UNIVERSAL) is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized trial with blinded outcomes assessment. Patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without intervention via a femoral approach with fluoroscopic guidance will be randomized 1:1 to US-guided femoral access, compared to no US. The primary outcome is the composite of major bleeding based on the BARC 2, 3, or 5 criteria or major vascular complications within 30 days. The trial is designed to have 80% power and a 2-sided alpha level of 5% to detect a 50% relative risk reduction for the primary outcome based on a control event rate of 14%.

Results

We completed enrollment on April 29, 2022, with 621 randomized patients. The patients had a mean age of 71 years (25.4% female), with a high rate of comorbidities, as follows: 45% had a prior percutaneous coronary intervention; 57% had previous coronary artery bypass surgery; and 18% had peripheral vascular disease.

Conclusions

The UNIVERSAL trial will be one of the largest randomized trials of US-guided femoral access and has the potential to change guidelines and increase US uptake for coronary procedures worldwide.

Management of the master endurance athlete with stable coronary artery disease

Master endurance athletes are individuals > 35 years of age who either train for or participate in competitions. Considering the potential burden of coronary artery disease in this population, clinicians should be aware of the inherent dangers of exercise. A tailored approach with shared decision-making, balancing risks and benefits of exercise, is recommended to ensure safe exercise in these individuals.

Nonculprit Lesion Severity and Outcome of Revascularization in Patients With STEMI and Multivessel Coronary Disease

BACKGROUND

In the COMPLETE (Complete vs Culprit-only Revascularization to Treat Multi-vessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI) trial, angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit lesions with the aim of complete revascularization reduced major cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of nonculprit-lesion stenosis severity measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) on the benefit of complete revascularization.

METHODS

Among 4,041 patients randomized in the COMPLETE trial, nonculprit lesion stenosis severity was measured using QCA in the angiographic core laboratory in 3,851 patients with 5,355 nonculprit lesions. In pre-specified analyses, the treatment effect in patients with QCA stenosis ≥60% versus <60% on the first coprimary outcome of CV death or new MI and the second co-primary outcome of CV death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization was determined.

RESULTS

The first coprimary outcome was reduced with complete revascularization in the 2,479 patients with QCA stenosis ≥60% (2.5%/year vs. 4.2%/year; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47 to 0.79), but not in the 1,372 patients with QCA stenosis <60% (3.0%/year vs. 2.9%/year; HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.50; interaction p = 0.02). The second coprimary outcome was reduced in patients with QCA stenosis ≥60% (2.9%/year vs. 6.9%/year; HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.54) to a greater extent than patients with QCA stenosis <60% (3.3%/year vs. 5.2%/year; HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.89; interaction p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with ST-segment elevation MI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization reduced major CV outcomes to a greater extent in patients with stenosis severity of ≥60% compared with <60%, as determined by quantitative coronary angiography.

Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

IMPORTANCE

Although the heart team approach is recommended in revascularization guidelines, the frequency with which heart team decisions differ from those of the original treating interventional cardiologist is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the difference in decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study, 245 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were recruited from 1 high-volume tertiary care referral center (185 patients were enrolled through a screening process, and 60 patients were retrospectively enrolled from the center's database). A total of 237 patients were included in the final virtual heart team analysis. Treatment decisions (which comprised coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy) were made by the original treating interventional cardiologists between March 15, 2012, and October 20, 2014. These decisions were then compared with pooled-majority treatment decisions made by 8 blinded heart teams using structured online case presentations between October 1, 2017, and October 15, 2018. The randomized members of the heart teams comprised experts from 3 domains, with each team containing 1 noninvasive cardiologist, 1 interventional cardiologist, and 1 cardiovascular surgeon. Cases in which all 3 of the heart team members disagreed and cases in which procedural discordance occurred (eg, 2 members chose coronary artery bypass grafting and 1 member chose percutaneous coronary intervention) were discussed in a face-to-face heart team review in October 2018 to obtain pooled-majority decisions. Data were analyzed from May 6, 2019, to April 22, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The Cohen κ coefficient between the treatment recommendation from the heart team and the treatment recommendation from the original treating interventional cardiologist.

RESULTS

Among 234 of 237 patients (98.7%) in the analysis for whom complete data were available, the mean (SD) age was 67.8 (10.9) years; 176 patients (75.2%) were male, and 191 patients (81.4%) had stenosis in 3 epicardial coronary vessels. A total of 71 differences (30.3%; 95% CI, 24.5%-36.7%) in treatment decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist occurred, with a Cohen κ of 0.478 (95% CI, 0.336-0.540; P = .006). The heart team decision was more frequently unanimous when it was concordant with the decision of the original treating interventional cardiologist (109 of 163 cases [66.9%]) compared with when it was discordant (28 of 71 cases [39.4%]; P < .001). When the heart team agreed with the original treatment decision, there was more agreement between the heart team interventional cardiologist and the original treating interventional cardiologist (138 of 163 cases [84.7%]) compared with when the heart team disagreed with the original treatment decision (14 of 71 cases [19.7%]); P < .001). Those with an original treatment of coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy, 32 of 148 patients [22.3%], 32 of 71 patients [45.1%], and 6 of 15 patients [40.0%], respectively, received a different treatment recommendation from the heart team than the original treating interventional cardiologist; the difference across the 3 groups was statistically significant (P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The heart team's recommended treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease differed from that of the original treating interventional cardiologist in up to 30% of cases. This subset of cases was associated with a lower frequency of unanimous decisions within the heart team and less concordance between the interventional cardiologists; discordance was more frequent when percutaneous coronary intervention or medication therapy were considered. Further research is needed to evaluate whether heart team decisions are associated with improvements in outcomes and, if so, how to identify patients for whom the heart team approach would be beneficial.

Stroke in the TOTAL trial: a randomized trial of routine thrombectomy vs. percutaneous coronary intervention alone in ST elevation myocardial infarction

AIMS

TOTAL (N = 10 732), a randomized trial of routine manual thrombectomy vs. percutaneous coronary intervention alone in ST elevation myocardial infarction, showed no difference in the primary efficacy outcome but a significant increase in stroke. We sought to understand these findings.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A detailed analysis of stroke timing, stroke severity, and stroke subtype was performed. Strokes were adjudicated by neurologists blinded to treatment assignment. Stroke within 30 days, the primary safety outcome, was increased [33 (0.7%) vs. 16 (0.3%), hazard ratio (HR) 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-3.75]. The difference in stroke was apparent within 48 h [15 (0.3%) vs. 5 (0.1%), HR 3.00; 95% CI 1.09-8.25]. There was an increase in strokes within 180 days with minor or no disability (Rankin 0-2) [18 (0.4%) vs. 13 (0.3%) HR 1.38; 95% CI 0.68-2.82] and in strokes with major disability or fatal (Rankin 3-6) [35 (0.7%) vs. 13 (0.3%), HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.42-5.08]. Most of the absolute difference was due to an increase in ischaemic strokes within 180 days [37 (0.7%) vs. 21 (0.4%), HR 1.71; 95% CI 1.03-3.00], but there was also an increase in haemorrhagic strokes [10 (0.2%) vs. 2 (0.04%), HR 4.98; 95% CI 1.09-22.7]. Patients that had a stroke had a mortality of 30.8% within 180 days vs. 3.4% without a stroke (P < 0.001). A meta-analysis of randomized trials (N = 21 173) showed an increase in risk of stroke (odds ratio 1.59; 95% CI 1.11-2.27) but a trend towards reduction in mortality odds ratio (odds ratio 0.87; 95% CI 0.76-1.00).

CONCLUSION

Thrombectomy was associated with a significant increase in stroke. Based on these findings, future trials must carefully collect stroke to determine safety in addition to efficacy.

Predictors of increased radiation dose during percutaneous coronary intervention

Radiation-induced injury is a potential unintended outcome of fluoroscopy-supported cardiology procedures (e.g., percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]). The injury might be deterministic in nature. Air kerma (AK) is considered an indicator of skin dose, and thus, an indicator for deterministic effects. Few studies have investigated the factors that contribute to an increased radiation dose, and none have used AK as a dependent variable. We studied the registry data of 967 consecutive patients (derivation model) undergoing ad hoc PCI. Linear and multiple regression analyses were performed to investigate which clinical, technical, and anatomic factors were associated with an increased AK. Multiple regression analyses were performed on an additional sample of 1,082 consecutive patients (validation model) to confirm the results. The variables found significant (multiple regression analyses) were radial access (mean increase in AK 253 mGy, 95% confidence interval [CI] 104 to 418, p = 0.0006), number of lesions treated (547 mGy, 95% CI 332 to 789, p < 0.0001), Type C lesions (132 mGy, 95% CI, 26 to 246, p = 0.014), bifurcation lesions (280 mGy, 95% CI 104 to 477, p = 0.0013), and chronic total occlusions (453 mGy, 95% CI 76 to 923, p = 0.016). The validation model (n = 1,082) confirmed all but type C lesions (p = 0.065). In conclusion, the present study has described factors that might contribute to an increased AK during PCI. In revealing a priori known factors associated with an increased radiation dose during PCI, physicians and patients might be more able to evaluate the risks and benefits of such a procedure.

Alcohol septal ablation complicated by complete heart block and permanent pacemaker failure

Alcohol septal ablation is a novel catheter-based technique for the treatment of obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Complete heart block complicates the procedure in 7%-30% of cases and necessitates the prophylactic insertion of a temporary pacing wire in all patients who do not have a permanent pacemaker. We describe a case of alcohol septal ablation complicated by complete heart block and failure to capture by both a permanent pacemaker and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICFD) with pacing capabilities.

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting attenuates postoperative bleeding associated with preoperative clopidogrel administration

BACKGROUND

Clopidogrel is being increasingly administered as primary therapy for acute coronary syndromes and prior to planned percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In these settings, surgical revascularization results in signifi- cantly increased postoperative bleeding, transfusion, and reexploration. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) may decrease the extent of postoperative bleeding in patients exposed to clopidogrel.

METHODS

The cases of 78 consecutive patients undergoing OPCAB by a single surgeon were retrospectively analyzed, and the patients were divided into 2 groups, those with immediately preoperative clopidogrel exposure (clopidogrel OPCAB, n = 15) and those without (control OPCAB, n = 63). Multiple perioperative parameters were statistically compared. The clopidogrel OPCAB group also was compared with a group of previously described on-pump coronary bypass patients who made up a historical control group (n = 59).

RESULTS

Postoperative bleeding, transfusion requirements, reexploration rates, duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of stay were markedly less for clopidogrel OPCAB patients than for historical controls and were statistically equivalent to those of control OPCAB patients.

CONCLUSION

Among these 15 OPCAB patients with immediately preoperative administration of clopidogrel and aspirin, outcome was improved compared with published results for on-pump coronary bypass patients and was equivalent to results among OPCAB patients not exposed to clopidogrel. Published, recommended approaches to clopidogrel administration, such as avoidance of pre-PCI clopidogrel, delay of surgery, and platelet transfusion do not appear to be necessary with OPCAB.