The benefit of complete revascularization after primary PCI for STEMI is attenuated by increasing age: Results from the DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI randomized study

Effects of complete revascularization according to age in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (COMPLETE-AGE)

BACKGROUND

In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit-lesion-only PCI. Whether age influences these results remains unknown.

METHODS

COMPLETE was a multinational, randomized trial evaluating a strategy of staged complete revascularization, consisting of angiography-guided PCI of all suitable nonculprit lesions, versus a strategy of culprit-lesion-only PCI. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, treatment effect according to age (≥65 years vs <65 years) was determined for the first coprimary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or new myocardial infarction (MI) and the second coprimary outcome of CV death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR). Median follow-up was 35.8 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 27.6-44.3 months).

RESULTS

Of 4,041 patients randomized in COMPLETE, 1,613 were aged ≥ 65 years (39.9%). Higher event rates were observed for both coprimary outcomes in patients aged ≥ 65 years comparted with those aged < 65 years (11.2% vs 7.9%, HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.22-1.83; 14.4% vs 11.8%, HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07-1.52, respectively). Complete revascularization reduced the first coprimary outcome in patients ≥ 65 years (9.7% vs 12.5%, HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.58-1.04) and < 65 years (6.7% vs 9.1%, HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96)(interaction P = .74). The second coprimary outcome was reduced in those ≥ 65 years (HR 0.56, 95% CI, 0.43-0.74) and < 65 years (HR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.37-0.61 (interaction P = .37). A sensitivity analysis was performed with consistent results demonstrated using a 75-year threshold (albeit attenuated).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization compared with culprit-lesion-only PCI reduced major cardiovascular events regardless of patient age and could be considered as a revascularization strategy in older adults.

Revascularization Modalities in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Review of the Current State of Evidence

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) stands as a leading global cause of mortality, underscoring the importance of effective prevention, early diagnosis, and timely intervention. While medications offer benefits to many patients, revascularization procedures such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and emerging hybrid approaches remain pivotal for ACS management. This review delves into the 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines alongside an analysis of existing literature to shed light on the spectrum of revascularization methods. While both CABG and PCI demonstrate promising outcomes, the optimal choice between the two hinges on a comprehensive assessment of individual patient factors, anatomical complexity guided by advanced imaging, comorbidities, and age. The determination of whether to pursue culprit or total revascularization, as well as immediate or staged revascularization, is contingent upon various factors, including age, disease complexity, and clinical outcomes. This evidence-based decision-making process is orchestrated by a multidisciplinary heart team grounded in ongoing clinical evaluation. The primary objective of this review is to provide valuable insights into revascularization strategies and scrutinize the congruence of current guidelines with recent advancements in the field.

Complete or Culprit-Only PCI in Older Patients with Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

The benefit of complete revascularization in older patients (≥75 years of age) with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease remains unclear.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned older patients with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease who were undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion to receive either physiology-guided complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions or to receive no further revascularization. Functionally significant nonculprit lesions were identified either by pressure wire or angiography. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any revascularization at 1 year. The key secondary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Safety was assessed as a composite of contrast-associated acute kidney injury, stroke, or bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 1445 patients underwent randomization (720 to receive complete revascularization and 725 to receive culprit-only revascularization). The median age of the patients was 80 years (interquartile range, 77 to 84); 528 patients (36.5%) were women, and 509 (35.2%) were admitted for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A primary-outcome event occurred in 113 patients (15.7%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 152 patients (21.0%) in the culprit-only group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.93; P = 0.01). Cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction occurred in 64 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 98 patients (13.5%) in the culprit-only group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88). The safety outcome did not appear to differ between the groups (22.5% vs. 20.4%; P = 0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients who were 75 years of age or older with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, those who underwent physiology-guided complete revascularization had a lower risk of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 1 year than those who received culprit-lesion-only PCI. (Funded by Consorzio Futuro in Ricerca and others; FIRE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03772743.).

Comparison of long-term outcomes of complete vs. incomplete revascularization in elderly patients (≥75 years) with acute coronary syndrome and multi-vessel disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularization strategy for elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains uncertain. We evaluated the impact of complete revascularization (CR) vs. incomplete revascularization (IR) in elderly ACS patients with multivessel disease (MVD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

Using registry data from 2011 to 2019, we conducted a propensity-score matched cohort study. Elderly patients (≥75 years) with ACS and MVD who underwent PCI were divided into CR and IR groups based on angiography during index hospitalization. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including all-cause mortality, recurrent non-fatal myocardial infarction, and any revascularization, were assessed at 3-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 1,018 enrolled patients, 496 (48.7%) underwent CR and 522 (51.3%) received IR. After 1:1 propensity-score matching, we analyzed 395 pairs. At 3-year follow-up, CR was significantly associated with lower MACE risk compared to IR (16.7% vs. 25.6%, HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.47-0.88, p = 0.006), driven by reduced all-cause mortality. This benefit was consistent across all pre-specified subgroups, particularly in ST segment elevation (STE)-ACS patients. In non-STE (NSTE)-ACS subgroup analysis, CR was also associated with a lower risk of cardiac mortality compared to IR (HR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12-0.75, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In elderly ACS patients with MVD undergoing PCI, CR demonstrates superior long-term outcomes compared to IR, irrespective of STE- or NSTE-ACS presentation.

Complete Percutaneous Revascularization in Patients Aged ≥85 Years With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Multivessel coronary disease is frequent in older patients who underwent coronary angiography for acute coronary syndrome. Whether a complete revascularization or a culprit-only approach is preferable in these patients is still debated. We included consecutive patients aged ≥85 years, presenting with acute coronary syndrome and showing multivessel coronary disease at coronary angiography. Patients were grouped according to complete (residual SYNTAX score [RSS] 0 to 8) or incomplete (RSS >8) revascularization. Primary end point was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs, the composite of cardiovascular death, re-myocardial infarction [re-MI], clinically driven percutaneous coronary intervention, and rehospitalization because of cardiac disease) at 2 years follow-up. A total of 166 patients met the criteria for enrollment; 108 patients had a final RSS 0 to 8 (complete revascularization) and 58 patients had a final RSS >8 (incomplete revascularization). The rate of MACE was reduced in patients who underwent complete revascularization (35.2% vs 51.7%, p = 0.039, adjusted hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.98, p = 0.04), a difference mainly driven by a reduction in re-MI (8.3% vs 19.0%, p = 0.045), clinically driven percutaneous coronary intervention (2.8% vs 19.0%, p <0.001), and rehospitalization for cardiac disease (9.3% vs 24.1%, p = 0.009). Other independent predictors of MACE were active malignancy, previous MI, left ventricle ejection fraction <35% (increasing risk of events), and radial access (reducing risk of events). In conclusion, in patients aged ≥85 years, a complete revascularization is associated with a better prognosis, especially in terms of nonfatal events.

Age Considerations in the Invasive Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes

The elderly constitute a major proportion of patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the US. Due to pre-existing comorbidities, frailty, and increased risk of complications from medical and invasive therapies, management of ACS in the elderly population poses challenges. In patients with ST-elevation MI, urgent revascularization with primary percutaneous coronary intervention remains the standard of care irrespective of age. However, an early invasive approach in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation MI is based on individual evaluation of risks versus benefits. In this review, the authors discuss the unique characteristics of elderly patients presenting with ACS, specific geriatric conditions that need to be considered while making treatment decisions in these situations, and available evidence, current guidelines, and future directions for invasive management of elderly patients with ACS.

Complete versus culprit-only strategy in older MI patients with multivessel disease

AIMS

The revascularization strategy to pursue in older myocardial infarction (MI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD) is currently unknown. For this reason, while waiting for the results of dedicated trials, we sought to compare a complete versus a culprit-only strategy in older MI patients by merging data from four registries.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The inclusion criteria for the target population of the present study were (i) age ≥ 75 years; (ii) MI (STE or NSTE); (iii) MVD; (iv) successful treatment of culprit lesion. Propensity scores (PS) were derived using logistic regression (backward stepwise selection, p < 0.2). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and major bleeding. Multivariable adjustment included the PS and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). The Kaplan-Meier plots were weighted for IPT. Among 2087 patients included, 1362 (65%) received culprit-only treatment whereas 725 (35%) complete revascularization. The mean age was 81.5 years, while the mean follow-up was 419 ± 284 days. Seventy-four patients (10%) died in the complete group and 223 in the culprit-only one (16%). The adjusted cumulative 1-year mortality was 9.7% in the complete and 12.9% in the culprit-only group (adjusted HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.50-0.89). Complete revascularization was associated with lower incidence of CV death (adjusted HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95) and MI (adjusted HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Culprit-only is the default strategy in older MI patients with MVD. In our analysis, complete revascularization was associated with lower all-cause and CV mortality and with a lower MI rate.

Functionally Complete Coronary Revascularisation in Patients Presenting with ST-elevation MI and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Up to half of patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention of a culprit stenosis in the context of the ST-elevation MI may present with multivessel disease. The presence of non-culprit stenoses have been shown to affect the outcomes of these patients, and the results of the more recent randomised trials highlight the importance of complete coronary revascularisation. In this paper, the authors review the main trials published on the topic and discuss tools for the assessment of non-culprit stenoses, while considering the right time for carrying out a complete coronary revascularisation.

Physiology-guided revascularization versus optimal medical therapy of nonculprit lesions in elderly patients with myocardial infarction: Rationale and design of the FIRE trial

BACKGROUND

Myocardial infarction (MI) in elderly patients is associated with unfavorable prognosis, and it is becoming an increasingly prevalent condition. The prognosis of elderly patients is equally impaired in ST-segment elevation (STE) or non-STE (NSTE), and it is markedly worsened by the common presence of multivessel disease (MVD). Given the limited evidence available for elderly patients, it has not yet been established whether, as for younger patients, a complete revascularization strategy in MI patients with MVD should be advocated. We present the design of a dedicated study that will address this research gap.

METHODS AND DESIGN

The FIRE trial is a prospective, randomized, international, multicenter, open-label study with blinded adjudicated evaluation of outcomes. Patients aged 75 years and older, with MI (either STE or NSTE), MVD at coronary artery angiography, and a clear culprit lesion will be randomized to culprit-only treatment or to physiology-guided complete revascularization. The primary end point will be the patient-oriented composite end point of all-cause death, any MI, any stroke, and any revascularization at 1 year. The key secondary end point will be the composite of cardiovascular death and MI. Quality of life and physical performance will be evaluated as well. All components of the primary and key secondary outcome will be tested also at 3 and 5 years. The sample size for the study is 1,400 patients.

IMPLICATIONS

The FIRE trial will provide evidence on whether a specific revascularization strategy should be applied to elderly patients presenting MI and MVD to improve their clinical outcomes.