The assessment of non culprit coronary artery lesions in patients with ST segment elevated myocardial infarction and multivessel disease by control angiography with quantitative coronary angiography

Updated Strategies in Non-Culprit Stenosis Management of Multivessel Coronary Disease-A Contemporary Review

The prevalence of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients underscores the need for optimal revascularization strategies. The ongoing debate surrounding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), hybrid interventions, or medical-only management adds complexity to decision-making, particularly in specific angiographic scenarios. The article critically reviews existing literature, providing evidence-based perspectives on non-culprit lesion revascularization in ACS. Emphasis is placed on nuances such as the selection of revascularization methods, optimal timing for interventions, and the importance of achieving completeness in revascularization. The debate between culprit-only revascularization and complete revascularization is explored in detail, focusing on ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), including patients with cardiogenic shock. Myocardial revascularization guidelines and recent clinical trials support complete revascularization strategies, either during the index primary PCI or within a short timeframe following the culprit lesion PCI (in both STEMI and NSTEMI). The article also addresses the complexities of decision-making in NSTEMI patients with multivessel CAD, advocating for immediate multivessel PCI unless complex coronary lesions require a staged revascularization approach. Finally, the article provided contemporary data on chronic total occlusion revascularization in ACS patients, highlighting the prognostic impact. In conclusion, the article addresses the evolving challenges of managing multivessel CAD in ACS patients, enhancing thoughtful integration into the clinical practice of recent data. We provided evidence-based, individualized approaches to optimize short- and long-term outcomes. The ongoing refinement of clinical and interventional strategies for non-culprit lesion management remains dynamic, necessitating careful consideration of patient characteristics, coronary stenosis complexity, and clinical context.

Angiography versus FFR guided complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization for patients presenting with STEMI: Network meta-analysis

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of different revascularization strategies among patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). MVD is present in about one-half of patients presenting with STEMI. Despite several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing complete revascularization (CR) and culprit-only revascularization (COR), the optimal PCI strategy for STEMI patients with MVD remains unsettled. Moreover, it is unclear whether angiography-guided CR or fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided CR is associated with better outcomes. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs comparing CR strategies with COR strategy in patients with STEMI between January 1, 2000 and September 30, 2021 were identified. A frequentist network meta-analyses were performed for three PCI strategies: (1) COR; (2) angiography-guided CR; and (3) FFR-guided CR. Ten RCTs including 7979 patients were included. A strategy of angiography-guided CR or FFR-guided CR was associated with a significantly lower rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and unplanned revascularization compared with COR. Although there were no statistical significant difference between angiography-guided CR and FFR-guided CR, P score analysis showed that angiography-guided CR was ranked as the best strategy for reducing MACE, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. In patients presenting with STEMI and MVD undergoing primary PCI, angiography-guided CR or FFR-guided CR improve outcomes compared with COR. Furthermore, the strategy of angiography-guided CR ranked as the best revascularization strategy in those patients.

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.

Management of Culprit and Non-Culprit Lesions in Acute Coronary Syndrome

Multivessel coronary artery disease, defined by the presence of a significant stenosis (≥50% diameter) in two or more epicardial coronary vessels, usually occurs in more than 50% of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The latest guidelines indicate revascularization of the non-culprit artery with a recommendation of class IIB. However, the management of non-culprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome is still a matter of debate. This article presents the most recent concepts related to the management of culprit and non-culprit coronary lesions, based on advanced imaging approaches, in order to identify high-risk patients and prevent further acute coronary syndromes.

Evaluation and Management of Nonculprit Lesions in STEMI

Nonculprit lesions are frequently observed in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Results from recent randomized clinical trials suggest that complete revascularization after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction improves outcomes. In this state-of-the-art paper, the authors review these trials and consider how best to determine which nonculprit lesions require revascularization and when this should be performed.

Opportunities for enhancing the care of older patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction presenting for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: Rationale and design of the SAFE-STEMI for Seniors trial

Advanced age is directly related to worse outcomes following ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and higher complication rates from antithrombotic therapies and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Often excluded from clinical trials, seniors presenting with STEMI remain an understudied population despite contributing to 140,000 hospital admissions annually. The SAFE-STEMI for Seniors study is a prospective, multicenter, unblinded, randomized clinical trial designed to examine the efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided complete revascularization in multivessel disease, while also investigating other components of STEMI care for patients ≥60 years including the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents for primary PCI and transradial PCI with the Glidesheath Slender and TR band. The SAFE-STEMI trial represents North America's first and only prospective randomized investigational device exemption study to use a Coordinated Registry Network infrastructure with collaborative partnering across industry manufacturers, promoting both efficiency and reduced cost of evidence development for regulatory decisions related to both diagnostic and therapeutic technologies in a single study design. The study has been powered to evaluate 2 independent co-primary end points in a population of older patients with STEMI: (1) third-generation drug-eluting stents for primary PCI and (2) instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided complete revascularization versus infarct-related artery-only revascularization.

Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in STEMI: a Contemporary Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization of the culprit coronary vessel and restoration of coronary flow is the goal of the initial management. However, obstructive non-culprit disease is frequently concomitantly found during initial angiography and portends a poor prognosis. Management of non-culprit lesions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been the subject of extensive debate. This review will examine the currently available evidence, with a specific focus on randomized clinical trials performed to date.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although early observational data suggested better outcomes with culprit-only revascularization, more recent data from several randomized trials have suggested improved outcomes with complete multivessel revascularization, either during the index PCI procedure or as a staged procedure. Data from recent randomized controlled trials have suggested the superiority of complete or multivessel revascularization and have subsequently led to changes to the most recent iterations of STEMI guidelines. However, the optimal management and timing of revascularization of non-culprit lesions in STEMI remain controversial.