Fractional Flow Reserve-Negative High-Risk Plaques and Clinical Outcomes After Myocardial Infarction

Gender differences in the diagnostic efficacy of coronary CTA: Overutilization of coronary CTA in pre- and perimenopausal females?

OBJECTIVES

Public campaigns such as the "Go-red-for-women"-initiative have raised heart-disease awareness and may trigger overutilization of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA). Objective was to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of coronary CTA stratified by age and gender.

METHODS

1882 consecutive patients (58.9 ± 11 years;42.5% females) with low-to-intermediate pre-test-probability of coronary artery disease (CAD) referred to coronary CTA according to ESC-2019 guidelines, were included. Diagnostic efficacy was defined by the 1)negative CTA-rate 2)obstructive CAD (>50%stenosis) 3)High-risk-plaque and 4)CAC-score.

RESULTS

The negative CTA rate was higher in females compared to males with 360/801 vs 292/1081 (45% vs 27%;p < 0.001). Females had a higher likelihood (OR 2.2:95%CI:1.81-2.67) of a negative CTA than males, despite they were older (p < 0.001). Obstructive disease prevalence was 25.6% and acceptable in both sexes (males vs females: 28.4% vs 21.8%;p = 0.0012). Males had more high-risk-plaque (23.6% vs 11.5%;p < 0.001). When stratifying age groups, negative CTA rate was highest in females <47 years (82.8%), but lower in males with 68.1% (p < 0.001), while obstructive disease prevalence was not different (males:6.5% vs females:4.6%:p = 0.874). Above 50 years, negative CTA rate (39.1% vs 17.6%,p < 0.001;OR 3.02:95%CI:2.381-3.823) was higher, and the obstructive disease rate was lower in females (24.8% vs 34.7%,p = 0.0003). SSPSTm(V.25,IBM) was used for statistical analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Above 50 years of age, diagnostic efficacy of coronary CTA is high in both males and females. In females <47 years, the negative CTA rate was highest with 82.8% and obstructive disease prevalence was low (4.6%), still justifying testing but recommending the use of specific tools (PROMISE minimal risk score) or other clinical tests for pre-selection.

A Narrative Review of Revascularization in Chronic Coronary Syndrome/Disease: Concepts and Misconceptions

Ischemic heart disease represents a significant global burden of morbidity and mortality. While revascularization strategies are well defined in acute settings, there are uncertainties regarding chronic coronary artery disease treatment. Recent trials have raised doubts about the necessity of revascularization for "stable", chronic coronary syndromes or disease, leading to a shift towards a more conservative approach. However, the issue remains far from settled. In this narrative review, we offer a summary of the most pertinent evidence regarding revascularization for chronic coronary disease, while reflecting on less-often-discussed details of major clinical trials. The cumulative evidence available indicates that there can be a prognostic benefit from revascularization in chronic coronary syndrome patients, provided there is significant ischemia, as demonstrated by either imaging or coronary physiology. Trials that have effectively met this criterion consistently demonstrate a reduction in rates of spontaneous myocardial infarction, which holds both prognostic and clinical significance. The prognostic benefit of revascularization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction remains especially problematic, with a single contemporary trial favouring surgical revascularization. The very recent publication of a trial focused on revascularizing non-flow-limiting "vulnerable" plaques adds further complexity to the field. The ongoing debates surrounding revascularization in chronic coronary syndromes emphasize the importance of personalized strategies. Revascularization, added to the foundational pillar of medical therapy, should be considered, taking into account symptoms, patient preferences, coronary anatomy and physiology, ischemia tests and intra-coronary imaging.

Preventive percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy alone for the treatment of vulnerable atherosclerotic coronary plaques (PREVENT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acute coronary syndrome and sudden cardiac death are often caused by rupture and thrombosis of lipid-rich atherosclerotic coronary plaques (known as vulnerable plaques), many of which are non-flow-limiting. The safety and effectiveness of focal preventive therapy with percutaneous coronary intervention of vulnerable plaques in reducing adverse cardiac events are unknown. We aimed to assess whether preventive percutaneous coronary intervention of non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques improves clinical outcomes compared with optimal medical therapy alone.

METHODS

PREVENT was a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial done at 15 research hospitals in four countries (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and New Zealand). Patients aged 18 years or older with non-flow-limiting (fractional flow reserve >0·80) vulnerable coronary plaques identified by intracoronary imaging were randomly assigned (1:1) to either percutaneous coronary intervention plus optimal medical therapy or optimal medical therapy alone, in block sizes of 4 or 6, stratified by diabetes status and the performance of percutaneous coronary intervention in a non-study target vessel. Follow-up continued annually in all enrolled patients until the last enrolled patient reached 2 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischaemia-driven target-vessel revascularisation, or hospitalisation for unstable or progressive angina, assessed in the intention-to-treat population at 2 years. Time-to-first-event estimates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared with the log-rank test. This report is the principal analysis from the trial and includes all long-term analysed data. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02316886, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 23, 2015, and Sept 29, 2021, 5627 patients were screened for eligibility, 1606 of whom were enrolled and randomly assigned to percutaneous coronary intervention (n=803) or optimal medical therapy alone (n=803). 1177 (73%) patients were men and 429 (27%) were women. 2-year follow-up for the primary outcome assessment was completed in 1556 (97%) patients (percutaneous coronary intervention group n=780; optimal medical therapy group n=776). At 2 years, the primary outcome occurred in three (0·4%) patients in the percutaneous coronary intervention group and in 27 (3·4%) patients in the medical therapy group (absolute difference -3·0 percentage points [95% CI -4·4 to -1·8]; p=0·0003). The effect of preventive percutaneous coronary intervention was directionally consistent for each component of the primary composite outcome. Serious clinical or adverse events did not differ between the percutaneous coronary intervention group and the medical therapy group: at 2 years, four (0·5%) versus ten (1·3%) patients died (absolute difference -0·8 percentage points [95% CI -1·7 to 0·2]) and nine (1·1%) versus 13 (1·7%) patients had myocardial infarction (absolute difference -0·5 percentage points [-1·7 to 0·6]).

INTERPRETATION

In patients with non-flow-limiting vulnerable coronary plaques, preventive percutaneous coronary intervention reduced major adverse cardiac events arising from high-risk vulnerable plaques, compared with optimal medical therapy alone. Given that PREVENT is the first large trial to show the potential effect of the focal treatment for vulnerable plaques, these findings support consideration to expand indications for percutaneous coronary intervention to include non-flow-limiting, high-risk vulnerable plaques.

FUNDING

The CardioVascular Research Foundation, Abbott, Yuhan Corp, CAH-Cordis, Philips, and Infraredx, a Nipro company.