Complete vs Culprit-Lesion-Only Revascularization for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the management of nonculprit lesions in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Outcomes from the pan-London heart attack centers

BACKGROUND

The impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis and management of nonculprit lesions remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the management and outcomes of patients with nonculprit lesions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational analysis of consecutive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) pathway activations across the heart attack center network in London, UK. Data from the study period in 2020 were compared with prepandemic data in 2019. The primary outcome was the rate of nonculprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

A total of 788 patients undergoing PPCI were identified, 209 (60%) in 2020 cohort and 263 (60%) in 2019 cohort had nonculprit lesions (p = .89). There was less functional assessment of the significance of nonculprit lesions in the 2020 cohort compared to 2019 cohort; in 8% 2020 cohort versus 15% 2019 cohort (p = .01). There was no difference in rates of PCI for nonculprit disease in the 2019 and 2020 cohorts (31% vs 30%, p = .11). Patients in 2020 cohort underwent nonculprit lesion PCI sooner than the 2019 cohort (p < .001). At 6 months there was higher rates of unplanned revascularization (4% vs. 2%, p = .05) and repeat myocardial infarction (4% vs. 1%, p = .02) in the 2019 cohort compared to 2020 cohort.

CONCLUSION

Changes to clinical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with reduced rates of unplanned revascularization and myocardial infarction at 6-months follow-up, and despite the pandemic, there was no difference in mortality, suggesting that it is not only safe but maybe more efficacious.

Association of coronary angiographic lesions and mortality in patients over 80 years with NSTEMI

Objective

Coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is of great importance during non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) management. Coronary artery lesions and their association to mortality in elderly patients with NSTEMI was investigated.

Methods

Patients >80 years of age who underwent CA at index NSTEMI during 2011–2014 were included. Data were collected from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry and Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies registries. Coronary lesions were categorised into; one vessel disease (1VD), multi-vessel disease (MVD) and left main disease (LMD) and 0%–49% stenosis grade were considered as controls.

Cox regression was used to estimate HRs for all-cause mortality associated with coronary lesions. Survival benefit was determined after PCI and in relation to if revascularisation was complete or incomplete and any complications in the Cath lab was assessed.

Results

Five thousand seven hundred and seventy patients with history of CA and PCI were included, 10% had normal coronary arteries, 26% had 1VD, 50% MVD and 14% LMD. Mortality was higher in patients with 1VD, MVD and LMD: HR 1.8 (1.3–2.5), HR 2.2 (1.6–3.0) and HR 2.8 (2.1–3.9), respectively. PCI were treated in 84% of 1VD, 73% MVD, and 54% in LMD. Survival was higher with PCI HR 0.85 (0.73–0.99). MVD had lower adjusted mortality HR 0.71 (0.58–0.87) compared with patients with MVD who did not undergo PCI. Complications and mortality were higher in patients with LMD both during CA and PCI, HR 2.9 (1.1–7.6) and HR 4.5 (1.6–12.5).

Conclusion

Coronary lesions (>50% stenosis) are strong predictors of mortality in elderly patients with NSTEMI. MVD is common and PCI treatment is associated with increased survival.

CVIT expert consensus document on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) update 2022

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) has significantly contributed to reducing the mortality of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) even in cardiogenic shock and is now the standard of care in most of Japanese institutions. The Task Force on Primary PCI of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Interventional and Therapeutics (CVIT) society proposed an expert consensus document for the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) focusing on procedural aspects of primary PCI in 2018. Updated guidelines for the management of AMI were published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in 2017 and 2020. Major changes in the guidelines for STEMI patients included: (1) radial access and drug-eluting stents (DES) over bare-metal stents (BMS) were recommended as a Class I indication, (2) complete revascularization before hospital discharge (either immediate or staged) is now considered as Class IIa recommendation. In 2020, updated guidelines for Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) patients, the followings were changed: (1) an early invasive strategy within 24 h is recommended in patients with NSTEMI as a Class I indication, (2) complete revascularization in NSTEMI patients without cardiogenic shock is considered as Class IIa recommendation, and (3) in patients with atrial fibrillation following a short period of triple antithrombotic therapy, dual antithrombotic therapy (e.g., DOAC and single oral antiplatelet agent preferably clopidogrel) is recommended, with discontinuation of the antiplatelet agent after 6 to 12 months. Furthermore, an aspirin-free strategy after PCI has been investigated in several trials those have started to show the safety and efficacy. The Task Force on Primary PCI of the CVIT group has now proposed the updated expert consensus document for the management of AMI focusing on procedural aspects of primary PCI in 2022 version.

Comparative Effectiveness of Complete Revascularization Strategies in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) should be available for revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) is controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy of various complete revascularization (CR) regimens for STEMI patients with MVD. The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases and clinicaltrial.gov were searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the FFR-guided CR, angiography-guided CR, and culprit-only revascularization (COR) strategies in STEMI patients with MVD. A Bayesian random-effect model was employed to synthesize the evidence in network meta-analysis. We used relative risk (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) as measures of effect size. The primary endpoint was the composite outcome of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction (MI). Twelve RCTs were included. Angiography-guided CR showed a lower event rate of the composite outcome (RR, 0.68; 95%CrI, 0.50–0.87), all-cause mortality (RR, 0.75; 95%CrI, 0.55–0.96), MI (RR, 0.63; 95%CrI, 0.43–0.86), and repeat revascularization (RR, 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.24–0.55) compared with COR. Additionally, angiography-guided CR had a lower risk of primary outcome (RR, 0.64; 95%CrI, 0.38–0.94) and MI (RR, 0.58; 95%CrI, 0.31–0.92) than FFR-guided CR. The difference between the FFR-guided CR and COR in terms of composite outcome, all-cause mortality, and MI was similar. Angiography-guided CR was associated with the highest probability of optimal treatment for the primary outcome (98.5%), followed by FFR-guided CR (1.2%) and COR (0.3%). STEMI patients with MVD benefitted more from angiography-guided CR than from FFR-guided CR. However, only one study compared the effectiveness of FFR-guided and angiography-guided PCI; thus, the comparison between FFR-guided and angiography-guided PCI relied on indirect evidence. Therefore, further studies directly comparing the effectiveness of these two CR strategies are warranted.

STEMI and Multivessel Disease: Medical Therapy Amplifies the Benefit of Complete Myocardial Revascularisation

BACKGROUND

Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel disease (MVD) may be treated with different revascularisation strategies. However, the potential predictors of outcomes on top of different revascularisation strategies are poorly studied. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of two different revascularisation strategies and the potential impact of medical therapy.

METHODS

Using a propensity score approach, the impact of two treatment strategies was analysed -staged non-culprit revascularisation group vs culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) group -- on a composite outcome of cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction, and repeated revascularisation. Moreover, models were further adjusted for medication at discharge.

RESULTS

Among 1,385 STEMI patients treated with primary PCI, a subgroup of 433 with MVD was analysed. At the median follow-up of 41 (IQR, 21-65) months, after propensity-score adjustment, the multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that the staged non-culprit revascularisation group was associated with a lower composite endpoint (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.82; p=0.01), lower CVD (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.14-0.82; p=0.02), and lower all-cause death (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.86; p=0.02). Use of renin-angiotensin inhibitors was associated with lower CVD (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.95; p=0.03), and both renin-angiotensin inhibitors (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.86; p=0.01) and beta blockers (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.79; p=0.01) were associated with lower all-cause death.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-word STEMI population with multivessel disease, staged non-culprit revascularisation was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality compared with a culprit-only PCI strategy. However, both revascularisation and medical therapy played a role in the improvement of mortality outcomes. Medical therapy amplified the benefit of myocardial revascularisation.

Innovative Managed Care May Be Related to Improved Prognosis for Acute Myocardial Infarction Survivors

BACKGROUND

Mortality following discharge in myocardial infarction survivors remains high. Therefore, we compared outcomes in myocardial infarction survivors participating and not participating in a novel, nationwide managed care program for myocardial infarction survivors in Poland.

METHODS

We used public databases. We included all patients hospitalized due to acute myocardial infarction in Poland between October 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. We excluded from the analysis all patients aged <18 years as well as those who died during hospitalization or within 10 days following discharge from hospital. All patients were prospectively followed. The primary end point was defined as death from any cause.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 324.8±140.5 days (78 034.1 patient-years; 340.0±131.7 days in those who did not die during the observation). Participation in the managed care program was related to higher odds ratio of participating in cardiac rehabilitation (4.67 [95% CI, 4.44-4.88]), consultation with a cardiologist (7.32 [6.83-7.84]), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (1.40 [1.22-1.61]), and cardiac resynchronization therapy with cardioverter-defibrillator implantation (1.57 [1.22-2.03]) but lower odds of emergency (0.88 [0.79-0.98]) and nonemergency percutaneous coronary intervention (0.88 [0.83-0.93]) and coronary artery bypass grafting (0.82 [0.71-0.94]) during the follow-up. One-year all-cause mortality was 4.4% among the program participants and 6.0% in matched nonparticipants. The end point consisting of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 10.6% and 12.0% (P<0.01) of participants and nonparticipants respectively, whereas all-cause death or hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons in 42.2% and 47.9% (P<0.001) among participants and nonparticipants, respectively. The difference in outcomes between patients participating and not participating in the managed care program could be explained by improved access to cardiac rehabilitation, cardiac care, and cardiac procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Managed care following myocardial infarction may be related to improved prognosis as it may facilitate access to cardiac rehabilitation and may provide a higher standard of outpatient cardiac care.

2021 Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes for the Perioperative Clinician

In this review, recent key publications related to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are summarized and placed into context of contemporary practice. Landmark trials examining vascular access in ST-elevation myocardial infarction, the management of multivessel disease, acute myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest are discussed. An update in pharmacology for ACS provides updates in major trials relating to P2Y12 inhibitor initiation, deescalation, and use in special populations. Additional updates in the use of lipid-lowering agents and adjunctive medications in ACS are reviewed. Finally, cardiac pathology related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as well as the impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic on the care of patients with ACS, is summarized.

Timing of Nonculprit Percutaneous Coronary Intervention after ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

INTRODUCTION

Complete revascularization of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD) has recently shown to reduce risk of adverse cardiovascular events, including cardiovascular death. Optimal timing of revascularization of nonculprit lesions remains controversial. We aimed to measure cardiac outcomes related to duration between primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) of the culprit lesion and staged PCI (sPCI) of nonculprit lesions.

METHODS

From a prospectively collected consecutive registry of 3,002 patients treated for STEMI by pPCI, 1,555 patients with MVD requiring sPCI were identified. Patients were placed into quartiles of duration to sPCI: 0-7 days (Q1), 7-22 days (Q2), 22-42 days (Q3), >42 days (Q4), excluding those who had complete revascularization at the index event. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and coronary artery bypass surgery. Cox regression and propensity score matching were performed correcting for confounding factors.

RESULTS

The average age at presentation was 65.7 ± 11.5 years. 333 were female (21.4%). Mean time between pPCI and sPCI was 28.3 days (±24.8). Rates of MACE were Q1 - 16.5%, Q2 - 21.2%, Q3 - 25.8%, and Q4 - 30.1% (log-rank <0.001). Following regression analysis, sPCI remained an independent risk factor for MACE (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.226 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.129-1.331, p < 0.001]). There was no association between the time interval up to sPCI with all-cause death (HR = 1.022 [95% CI: 0.925-1.129, p = 0.671]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with MVD are at increased risk of experiencing MACE after revascularization of nonculprit vessels with increasing time delay between pPCI and sPCI.

Identification of anatomic risk factors for acute coronary events by optical coherence tomography in patients with myocardial infarction and residual nonflow limiting lesions: rationale and design of the PECTUS-obs study

INTRODUCTION

In patients with myocardial infarction, the decision to treat a nonculprit lesion is generally based on its physiological significance. However, deferral of revascularisation based on nonischaemic fractional flow reserve (FFR) values in these patients results in less favourable outcomes compared with patients with stable coronary artery disease, potentially caused by vulnerable nonculprit lesions. Intravascular optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging allows for in vivo morphological assessment of plaque 'vulnerability' and might aid in the detection of FFR-negative lesions at high risk for recurrent events.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The PECTUS-obs study is an international multicentre prospective observational study that aims to relate OCT-derived vulnerable plaque characteristics of nonflow limiting, nonculprit lesions to clinical outcome in patients with myocardial infarction. A total of 438 patients presenting with myocardial infarction (ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction) will undergo OCT-imaging of any FFR-negative nonculprit lesion for detection of plaque vulnerability. The primary study endpoint is a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction or unplanned revascularisation) at 2-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints will be the same composite at 1-year and 5-year follow-up, target vessel failure, target vessel revascularisation, target lesion failure and target lesion revascularisation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the region Arnhem-Nijmegen. The results of this study will be disseminated in a main paper and additional papers with subgroup analyses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03857971.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Same-Sitting and Staged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Non-Culprit Artery for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Coronary Disease

Recent trials and meta-analysis have indicated that complete revascularization (CR) of multivessel coronary disease is beneficial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) compared to culprit-only intervention. However, the optimal timing of CR remains unclear. We aimed to analyze the optimal timing of CR in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease by performing an updated network meta-analysis using the recent largest randomized controlled trial. PUBMED and EMBASE were searched through October 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing CR and culprit-only revascularization. A random-effect network meta-analysis comparing three arms (same-sitting [during the index procedure] CR versus staged CR versus culprit-only) and 4 arms (same-sitting CR versus staged CR [in-hospital] versus staged CR [out-hospital] versus culprit-only) were performed. Eleven studies with a total of 7,015 patients were included in our analysis. There was no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.05), cardiovascular death (HR 0.69, 95%CI 0.35-1.33), myocardial infarction (HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.37-1.16), and revascularization (HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.70-1.58) between same-sitting CR and staged CR. When staged CR was further divided into staged CR during the hospitalization and after discharge, there was no significant difference in these outcomes between staged CR (in-hospital) and staged CR (out-hospital). In conclusion, in patients with multivessel disease presenting with STEMI, complete revascularization at any timing, including same-sitting, staged in-hospital, and staged out-hospital, may have similar benefits.

Does multivessel revascularization fit all patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

We sought to assess the relative merits of different revascularization strategies in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock or chronic total occlusion (CTO).

Background

Recent randomized trials and meta-analysis have suggested that multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better outcomes in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, however, patients complicated by cardiogenic shock or CTO were excluded.

Methods

Studies that compared multivessel PCI (immediate or staged) with culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock or CTO were included. Random odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were conducted.

Results

Sixteen studies with 8695 patients complicated by cardiogenic shock and eight studies with 2259 patients complicated by CTO were included. In patients complicated by cardiogenic shock, a strategy of CO-PCI was associated with lower risk for short-term renal failure (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61–0.93; I² = 0.0%), with no significant difference in MACE, all-cause mortality, re-infarction, revascularization, cardiac death, heart failure, major bleeding, or stroke compared with an immediate MV-PCI strategy. In patients complicated by CTO, a strategy of CO-PCI was associated with higher risk for long-term MACE (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.39–3.06; I² = 54.0%), all-cause mortality (OR: 2.89; 95% CI: 2.09–4.00; I² = 0.0%), cardiac death (OR: 3.12; 95% CI: 2.05–4.75; I² = 16.8%), heart failure (OR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.22–3.24; I² = 0.0%), and stroke (OR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.04–7.53; I² = 0.0%) compared with a staged MV-PCI strategy, without any difference in re-infarction, revascularization, or major bleeding.

Conclusions

For patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock, an immediate multivessel PCI was not advocated due to a higher risk for short-term renal failure, whereas for patients complicated by CTO, a staged multivessel PCI was advocated due to reduced risks for long-term MACE, all-cause mortality, cardiac death, heart failure, and stroke.

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.

Effects of patient characteristics on the efficacy of complete revascularization for treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the efficacy of complete vs culprit-only revascularization for treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel disease. However, the efficacy of complete revascularization vs culprit-only revascularization in some STEMI patient subgroups remains unclear.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase for related RCTs from the start date of databases to January 3, 2020. The endpoint assessed in this meta-analysis was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted stratified by each of the 5 factors of interest (i.e., sex, age, history of diabetes, ECG infarct location, and the number of arteries with stenosis) to estimate pooled hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval. Random-effects meta-regression was conducted to assess subgroup differences. We examined publication bias by drawing funnel plots and performing Egger test. This meta-analysis is reported according to the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included for pooled analysis. Compared with culprit-only revascularization, complete revascularization significantly reduced the risk of MACE (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.55; I2 = 0%; P for relative effect < .001). This significant reduction in the risk of MACE exhibited by complete revascularization was observed in most of the subgroups of interest. All of the subgroup effects based on the 5 factors of interest were not statistically significant (Psubgroup ranged from 0.198 to 0.556). Publication bias was not suggested by funnel plots and Egger test.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with culprit-only revascularization, complete revascularization significantly reduces the MACE risk in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, which is independent of sex, age, history of diabetes, ECG infarct location, and the number of arteries with stenosis.

Complete Revascularization of Stable STEMI Patients Offers a Significant Benefit if Done During the Index PCI, but Not if It's Done as a Staged Procedure

Background

Complete revascularization (CR) of hemodynamically stable STEMI improves outcomes when compared to culprit-only PCI. However, the optimal timing for CR (CR during index PCI [iCR] versus staged PCI [sCR]) is unknown. sCR is defined as revascularization of non-culprit lesions not done during the index procedure (mean 31.5±24.6 days after STEMI). Our goal was to determine whether iCR was the superior strategy when compared to sCR.

Methods

A systematic review of Medline, Cochrane, and Embase was performed for RCTs reporting outcomes of stable STEMI patients who had undergone CR. Only RCTs with a clearly defined timing of CR, for the classification into iCR and sCR, and a follow-up of at least 12 months were included. Seven RCTs comprising 6647 patients (mean age:62.9±1.4 years, male sex:79.4%) met these criteria and were included.

Results

After a mean follow-up of 25.1±9.4 months, iCR was associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26–0.90, p=0.02, relative risk reduction [RRR] 52%) and non-fatal reinfarctions (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25–0.70, p=0.001, RRR: 58%). sCR showed a significant reduction in non-fatal reinfarctions only (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54–0.85, p=0.0008, RRR: 32%). There was no difference in the safety outcome of contrast-induced nephropathy between groups.

Conclusion

iCR of stable STEMI patients is associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular death and a trend towards reduction in all-cause mortality. These benefits are not seen in sCR. Both strategies are associated with a reduction in non-fatal reinfarctions.

Ten-Year All-Cause Death According to Completeness of Revascularization in Patients With Three-Vessel Disease or Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Insights From the SYNTAX Extended Survival Study

BACKGROUND

Ten-year all-cause death according to incomplete (IR) versus complete revascularization (CR) has not been fully investigated in patients with 3-vessel disease and left main coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

The SYNTAX Extended Survival study (Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery: SYNTAX Extended Survival [SYNTAXES]) evaluated vital status up to 10 years in patients who were originally enrolled in the SYNTAX trial. In the present substudy, outcomes of the CABG CR group were compared with the CABG IR, PCI CR, and PCI IR groups. In addition, in the PCI cohort, the residual SYNTAX score (rSS) was used to quantify the extent of IR and to assess its association with fatal late outcome. The rSS of 0 suggests CR, whereas a rSS>0 identifies the degree of IR.

RESULTS

IR was more frequently observed in patients with PCI versus CABG (56.6% versus 36.8%) and more common in those with 3-vessel disease than left main coronary artery disease in both the PCI arm (58.5% versus 53.8%) and the CABG arm (42.8% versus 27.5%). Patients undergoing PCI with CR had no significant difference in 10-year all-cause death compared with those undergoing CABG (22.2% for PCI with CR versus 24.3% for CABG with IR versus 23.8% for CABG with CR). In contrast, those with PCI and IR had a significantly higher risk of all-cause death at 10 years compared with CABG and CR (33.5% versus 23.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.15-1.91]). When patients with PCI were stratified according to the rSS, those with a rSS≤8 had no significant difference in all-cause death at 10 years as the other terciles (22.2% for rSS=0 versus 23.9% for rSS>0-4 versus 28.9% for rSS>4-8), whereas a rSS>8 had a significantly higher risk of 10-year all-cause death than those undergoing PCI with CR (50.1% versus 22.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.40 [95% CI, 2.13-5.43]).

CONCLUSIONS

IR is common after PCI, and the degree of incompleteness was associated with 10-year mortality. If it is unlikely that complete (or nearly complete; rSS<8) revascularization can be achieved with PCI in patients with 3-vessel disease, CABG should be considered. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00114972. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03417050.

Entwicklung kardiovaskuläre Medizin 2020

Auf dem Gebiet der ischämischen Herzerkrankungen war 2020 ein spannendes Jahr. Die COVID-19-Pandemie hat Diagnostik und Therapie der koronaren Herzkrankheit in vielen Bereichen stark beeinflusst. Daneben haben die Ergebnisse der ISCHEMIA-Studie zumindest in Teilen die bisherige Praxis in der Behandlung des stabilen, chronischen Koronarsyndroms (CCS) infrage gestellt. In dieser Studie konnte keine Prognoseverbesserung durch Myokardrevaskularisation bei Patienten mit stabiler Ischämie nachgewiesen werden, wohl aber eine Verbesserung von Lebensqualität und Angina-pectoris-Beschwerden. Darüber hinaus wurden neue europäische Leitlinien zum ACS (akutes Koronarsyndrom) ohne ST-Streckenhebung (NSTE-ACS) vorgestellt. Wichtige Publikationen aus dem Jahr 2020 führen die dort vorgestellten Konzepte weiter. So konnte der Nutzen der frühinvasiven Behandlung beim NSTE-ACS erstmals auch für die ≥ 80-Jährigen nachgewiesen werden. Neuere Analysen bestätigen ferner das Konzept der kompletten Revaskularisation bei ST-Hebungsinfarkt ohne Schock und Mehrgefäßerkrankung. Dieses Konzept wird nun auf das NSTE-ACS übertragen. In der antithrombozytären Therapie stellen aktuelle Studien die antithrombozytäre Vorbehandlung als Teil der frühinvasiven Strategie bei unbekanntem Koronarstatus infrage. Mehrere Studien zeigen den potenziellen Nutzen einer Deeskalation der antithrombozytären Therapie nach NSTE-ACS insbesondere bei älteren Patienten.

An Observational Study Assessing Immediate Complete Versus Delayed Complete Revascularisation in Patients with Multi-Vessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background:

More than half of the patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have multi-vessel coronary artery disease. This is associated with worse outcomes compared with single vessel disease. Whilst evidence now exists to support complete revascularisation for bystander disease the optimal timing is still debated. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI and multi-vessel disease who underwent complete revascularisation as inpatients in comparison to patients who had staged PCI as early outpatients.

Methods and results:

We conducted an observational cohort study consisting of 1522 patients who underwent primary PCI with multi-vessel disease from 2012 to 2019. Exclusions included patients with cardiogenic shock and previous CABG. Patients were split into 2 groups depending on whether they had complete revascularisation performed as inpatients or as staged PCI at later outpatient dates. The primary outcome of this study was major adverse cardiac events (consisting of myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularisation and all-cause mortality).

834 (54.8%) patients underwent complete inpatient revascularisation and 688 patients (45.2%) had outpatient PCI (median 43 days post discharge). Of the inpatient group, 652 patients (78.2%) underwent complete revascularisation during the index procedure whilst 182 (21.8%) patients underwent inpatient bystander PCI in a second procedure. Overall, there were no significant differences between the groups with regards to their baseline or procedural characteristics. Over the follow-up period there was no significant difference in MACE between the cohorts (P = .62), which persisted after multivariate adjustment (HR 1.21 [95% CI 0.72-1.96]). Furthermore, in propensity-matched analysis there was no significant difference in outcome between the groups (HR: 0.86 95% CI: 0.75-1.25).

Conclusions:

Our study demonstrated that the timing of bystander PCI after STEMI did not appear to have an effect on cardiovascular outcomes. We suggest that patients with multi-vessel disease can potentially be discharged promptly and undergo early outpatient bystander PCI. This could significantly reduce length of stay in hospital.

The SARS-CoV-2 receptor, ACE-2, is expressed on many different cell types: implications for ACE-inhibitor- and angiotensin II receptor blocker-based cardiovascular therapies

SARS-CoV-2 is characterized by a spike protein allowing viral binding to the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-2, which acts as a viral receptor and is expressed on the surface of several pulmonary and extra-pulmonary cell types, including cardiac, renal, intestinal and endothelial cells. There is evidence that also endothelial cells are infected by SARS-COV-2, with subsequent occurrence of systemic vasculitis, thromboembolism and disseminated intravascular coagulation. Those effects, together with the "cytokine storm" are involved in a worse prognosis. In clinical practice, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are extensively used for the treatment of hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases. In in vivo studies, ACE-Is and ARBs seem to paradoxically increase ACE-2 expression, which could favour SARS-CoV-2 infection of host's cells and tissues. By contrast, in patients treated with ACE-Is and ARBs, ACE-2 shows a downregulation at the mRNA and protein levels in kidney and cardiac tissues. Yet, it has been claimed that both ARBs and ACE-Is could result potentially useful in the clinical course of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. As detected in China and as the Italian epidemiological situation confirms, the most prevalent comorbidities in deceased patients with COVID-19 are hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Older COVID-19-affected patients with cardiovascular comorbidities exhibit a more severe clinical course and a worse prognosis, with many of them being also treated with ARBs or ACE-Is. Another confounding factor is cigarette smoking, which has been reported to increase ACE-2 expression in both experimental models and humans. Sex also plays a role, with chromosome X harbouring the gene coding for ACE-2, which is one of the possible explanations of why mortality in female patients is lower. Viral entry also depends on TMPRSS2 protease activity, an androgen dependent enzyme. Despite the relevance of experimental animal studies, to comprehensively address the question of the potential hazards or benefits of ACE-Is and ARBs on the clinical course of COVID-19-affected patients treated by these anti-hypertensive drugs, we will need randomized human studies. We claim the need of adequately powered, prospective studies aimed at answering the following questions of paramount importance for cardiovascular, internal and emergency medicine: Do ACE-Is and ARBs exert similar or different effects on infection or disease course? Are such effects dangerous, neutral or even useful in older, COVID-19-affected patients? Do they act on multiple cell types? Since ACE-Is and ARBs have different molecular targets, the clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection could be also different in patients treated by one or the other of these two drug classes. At present, insufficient detailed data from trials have been made available.

COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease: from basic mechanisms to clinical perspectives

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by a strain of coronavirus known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become a global pandemic that has affected the lives of billions of individuals. Extensive studies have revealed that SARS-CoV-2 shares many biological features with SARS-CoV, the zoonotic virus that caused the 2002 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, including the system of cell entry, which is triggered by binding of the viral spike protein to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. Clinical studies have also reported an association between COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease. Pre-existing cardiovascular disease seems to be linked with worse outcomes and increased risk of death in patients with COVID-19, whereas COVID-19 itself can also induce myocardial injury, arrhythmia, acute coronary syndrome and venous thromboembolism. Potential drug-disease interactions affecting patients with COVID-19 and comorbid cardiovascular diseases are also becoming a serious concern. In this Review, we summarize the current understanding of COVID-19 from basic mechanisms to clinical perspectives, focusing on the interaction between COVID-19 and the cardiovascular system. By combining our knowledge of the biological features of the virus with clinical findings, we can improve our understanding of the potential mechanisms underlying COVID-19, paving the way towards the development of preventative and therapeutic solutions.

ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease – A Critical Review of Current Practice, Evidence and Meta-analyses

Collapse