Economic evaluation of culprit lesion only PCI vs. immediate multivessel PCI in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial

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.

Trends in the cost-effectiveness level of percutaneous coronary intervention: Macro socioeconomic analysis and health technology assessment

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), one of the most prevalent techniques of revascularization, is a procedure that remarkably improves treatment outcomes. However, it consumes large amounts of medical resources and has resulted in an increased socioeconomic burden due to the increasing number of target patients. In recent years, there have been sporadic discussions, both in Japan and other countries, regarding the optimization of interventions and the perspective of medical economics. Based on this, previous studies on PCI-related cost-effectiveness were reviewed in order to consider the current level of medical economics regarding PCI. Using the databases MEDLINE and EMBASE, a survey involving data from original articles and systematic reviews was conducted from January 2010 to August 2022. Conditions were not imposed on the evidence level due to the paucity of studies, although field studies were prioritized over simulation studies. The macro medical economics of acute myocardial infarction treatment, which is the primary target of PCI, were generally at an average level when compared to those in other countries; however, there is room for further improvement in Japan's performance. Revascularization in a population with multivessel coronary artery disease showed that coronary artery bypass graft surgery tended to be more cost-effective than PCI in the long-term setting. However, it was suggested that PCI may be more cost-effective in patients with SYNTAX Score ≤22 or left main artery disease. A cost-effectiveness report for stable angina patients was not in favor of PCI over medical therapy. Moreover, there were some reports showing the medical economic superiority of early myocardial ischemia evaluation, and it was foreseen that active selection of patients will contribute to the improvement of the overall cost-effectiveness of PCI. In order to further improve the socioeconomic significance of PCI in the future, it is necessary to aim for harmony between clinical practice and health economics.

The effect of heparin administration time on thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

In the clinical setting of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), there are controversies about the role of early heparin administration on the patients' outcome and the patency of the infarct-related artery (IRA). In this randomized clinical trial, we sought to investigate the effect of heparin administration time on the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade of patients with STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

METHODS

Eligible individuals were randomly assigned to two groups: early heparin administration (90 IU/kg) in the emergency department (group A, n = 92) and late heparin administration in the Cath lab (group B, n = 77). All demographic and clinical information and on admission examinations were documented. Clinical outcomes, 40-day mortality, and left ventricular (LV) function improvement in follow-up were also collected.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 57.1 ± 8.8 and 57.5 ± 7.5 years in groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.232). The history of hypertension (HTN) (34.8% vs. 53.2%, P = 0.016) and diabetes (14.1% vs. 29.9%, P = 0.013) was significantly lower in group A. The LV ejection fraction (LVEF) changes were significant before and after the intervention within each group. However, this change was not significantly different between the groups (P = 0.592). Post-intervention complications did not differ between the two groups (P > 0.05). In the proportion of cases with TIMI flow grade less than 2 in the IRA, no significant differences were observed between the groups. [P = 0.092 for left anterior descending (LAD) and P = 0.086 for left circumflex artery (LCX)].

CONCLUSION

Although heparin administration in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI is safe and effective, the effect appears not to be time-dependent.