Immediate versus staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease (BIOVASC): a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial

Timing of fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: Rationale and design of the OPTION-STEMI trial

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend complete revascularization (CR) in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). With regard to the timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA), recent randomized clinical trials have revealed that immediate CR was non-inferior to staged CR. However, the optimal timing of CR remains uncertain. The OPTION-STEMI trial compared immediate CR and in-hospital staged CR guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) for intermediate stenosis of the non-IRA.

METHODS

The OPTION-STEMI is a multicenter, investigator-initiated, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority randomized clinical trial. The study included patients with at least 1 non-IRA lesion with ≥50% stenosis by visual estimation. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomized into 2 groups at a 1:1 ratio: immediate CR (i.e., PCI for the non-IRA performed during primary angioplasty) or in-hospital staged CR. In the in-hospital staged CR group, PCI for non-IRA lesions was performed on another day during the index hospitalization. Non-IRA lesions with 50%-69% stenosis by visual estimation were evaluated by FFR, whereas those with ≥70% stenosis was revascularized without FFR. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and all unplanned revascularization at 1 year after randomization. Enrolment began in December 2019 and was completed in January 2024. The follow-up for the primary endpoint will be completed in January 2025, and primary results will be available in the middle of 2025.

CONCLUSIONS

The OPTION-STEMI is a multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized trial that evaluated the timing of in-hospital CR with the aid of FFR in patients with STEMI and MVD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov. Unique identifier: NCT04626882; and URL: https://cris.nih.go.kr. Unique identifier: KCT0004457.

Complete versus culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is commonly performed for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) in the elderly. Complete revascularization has been shown to benefit the general population, yet its safety and efficacy in older patients are uncertain.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing complete versus culprit-only PCI in patients ≥65 years old with ACS and MVD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR), all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. Data were pooled using a random effects model with a restricted maximum likelihood estimator to generate risk ratios (RRs).

RESULTS

Five RCTs with 4105 patients aged ≥65 years were included. Compared with culprit-only PCI, complete revascularization reduced MI (RR 0.65; 95 % CI 0.49-0.85; p < 0.01). MACE (RR 0.75; 95 % CI 0.54-1.05; p = 0.09) and IDR (RR 0.41; 95 % CI 0.16-1.04; p = 0.06) were not significantly different between both strategies among those aged ≥65. However, there was a significant reduction in MI (RR 0.69; 95 % CI 0.49-0.96; p-value = 0.03), MACE (RR 0.78; 95 % CI 0.65-0.94; p < 0.01), and IDR (RR 0.60; 95 % CI 0.41-0.89; p < 0.01) in those aged ≥75.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients aged ≥65 years with ACS and MVD, a strategy of complete revascularization by PCI reduces MI compared to culprit-only PCI with no significant difference in MACE and IDR. However, complete revascularization reduced MI, MACE, and IDR in those aged ≥75 years suggesting a possible benefit in this age group.

Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A strategy of complete revascularization (CR) is recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). However, the optimal timing of CR remains equivocal. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate CR (ICR) with staged CR in patients with ACS and MVD. Our primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. All outcomes were assessed at 3 time points: in-hospital or at 30 days, at 6 months to 1 year, and at >1 year. Data were pooled in RevMan 5.4 using risk ratios as the effect measure. A total of 9 RCTs (7,506 patients) were included in our review. A total of 7 trials enrolled patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 1 enrolled patients with non-STEMI only, and 1 enrolled patients with all types of ACS. There was no difference between ICR and staged CR regarding all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at any time window. ICR reduced the rate of myocardial infarction and decreased the rate of repeat revascularization at 6 months and beyond. The rates of cerebrovascular events and stent thrombosis were similar between the 2 groups. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis demonstrated a lower rate of myocardial infarction and a reduction in repeat revascularization at and after 6 months with ICR strategy in patients with mainly STEMI and MVD. The 2 groups had no difference in the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Further RCTs are needed to provide more definitive conclusions and investigate CR strategies in other ACS.

Timing of Complete Revascularization Stratified by Index Presentation During On- and Off-Hours

Recent trials suggested immediate complete revascularization (ICR) as a safe alternative to staged complete revascularization (SCR), but the impact of the respective percutaneous coronary intervention strategies between on- versus off-hours is unclear. On-hours was defined as an index revascularization performed between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, or else the procedure was defined as performed during off-hours. The primary end point consisted of a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular events at 1-year follow-up. We used Cox regression models to relate randomized treatment with study end points. We evaluated multiplicative and additive interactions between on- versus off-hours and randomized treatment. The BIOVASC (Percutaneous Complete Revascularization Strategies Using Sirolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Coated Stents in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease) trial enrolled 1,097 and 428 patients during on- and off-hours, respectively. Patients randomized during off-hours were more likely to present with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (66.4% vs 29.5%, p <0.001). The composite primary outcome occurred in 8.4% and 10.1% of patients randomized to ICR and SCR, respectively, during on-hours (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.19). During off-hours, the primary composite outcome occurred in 5.4% and 7.7% in ICR and SCR (0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 1.46) with no evidence of a differential effect (interaction pmultiplicative = 0.70, padditive = 0.56). No differential effect was found between treatment allocation and on- versus off-hours in any of the secondary outcomes. In conclusion, no differential treatment effect was found when comparing ICR versus SCR in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease during on- or off-hours.

In-hospital versus after-discharge complete revascularization in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. REVIVA-ST trial

INTRODUCTION

Complete revascularization (CR) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD), is associated with a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). However, there is uncertainty about whether nonculprit-lesion revascularization should be performed, during index hospitalization or delayed, especially regarding health care resources utilization. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of in-hospital nonculprit-lesion revascularization vs. delayed (after discharge) revascularization on the length of index hospitalization.

METHODS

In this single-center study, we randomly assigned patients with STEMI and MVD who underwent successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either CR during in-hospital admission or a delayed CR after discharge. The first primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay. The second endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or ischemia-driven revascularization at 12 months (MACE).

RESULTS

From January 2018 to December 2022, we enrolled 258 patients (131 allocated to CR during in-hospital admission and 127 to an after-discharge CR). We found a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay in those assigned to after-discharge CR strategy [4 days (3-5) versus 7 days (5-9); p = 0.001]. At 12-month of follow-up, no differences were found in the occurrence of MACE, 7 (5.34%) patients in in-hospital CR and 4 (3.15%) in after-discharge CR strategy; (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 2.02; p = 0.397).

CONCLUSIONS

In STEMI patients with MVD, an after-discharge CR strategy reduces the length of index hospitalization without an increased risk of MACE after 12 months of follow-up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04743154.

Advances in Clinical Cardiology 2023: A Summary of Key Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Over the course of 2023, numerous key clinical trials with valuable contributions to clinical cardiology were published or presented at major international conferences. This review seeks to summarise these trials and reflect on their clinical context.

METHODS

The authors collated and reviewed clinical trials presented at major cardiology conferences during 2023 including the American College of Cardiology (ACC), European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR), European Society of Cardiology (ESC), Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT), American Heart Association (AHA), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), TVT-The Heart Summit (TVT) and Cardiovascular Research Technologies (CRT). Trials with a broad relevance to the cardiology community and those with potential to change current practice were included.

RESULTS

A total of 80 key cardiology clinical trials were identified for inclusion. Key trials in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and antiplatelet management such as HOST-IDEA, T-PASS and STOP-DAPT3 were included in addition to several pivotal interventional trials such as ORBITA 2, MULTISTARS-AMI, ILUMIEN-IV, OCTIVUS and OCTOBER. Additionally, several trials evaluated new stent design and technology such as BIOSTEMI, PARTHENOPE and TRANSFORM. Structural intervention trials included long-term data from PARTNER 3, new data on the durability of transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI), in addition to major new trials regarding transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention from TRISCEND II. Heart failure (HF) and prevention covered several key studies including DAPA-MI, STEP-HF, ADVOR, DICTATE HF and CAMEO-DAPA. In cardiac devices and electrophysiology, several trial exploring novel ablation strategies in atrial fibrillation (AF) such as PULSED AF and ADVENT were presented with further data evaluating the efficacy of anticoagulation in subclinical AF in NOAH-AFNET 6, FRAIL AF and AZALEA-TIMI 71.

CONCLUSION

This article presents a summary of key clinical cardiology trials published and presented during the past year and should be of interest to both practising clinicians and researchers.

Cardiac Surgery 2023 Reviewed

We reviewed the cardiac surgical literature for 2023. PubMed displayed almost 34,000 hits for the search term "cardiac surgery AND 2023." We used a PRISMA approach for a results-oriented summary. Key manuscripts addressed the mid- and long-term effects of invasive treatment options in patient populations with coronary artery disease (CAD), comparing interventional therapy (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) with surgery (coronary artery bypass graft [CABG]). The literature in 2023 again confirmed the excellent long-term outcomes of CABG compared with PCI in patients with left main stenosis, specifically in anatomically complex chronic CAD, but even in elderly patients, generating further support for an infarct-preventative effect as a prognostic mechanism of CABG. For aortic stenosis, a previous trend of an early advantage for transcatheter (transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]) and a later advantage for surgical (surgical aortic valve replacement) treatment was also re-confirmed by many studies. Only the Evolut Low Risk trial maintained an early advantage of TAVI over 4 years. In the mitral and tricuspid field, the number of interventional publications increased tremendously. A pattern emerges that clinical benefits are associated with repair quality, making residual regurgitation not irrelevant. While surgery is more invasive, it currently generates the highest repair rates and longest durability. For terminal heart failure treatment, donor pool expansion for transplantation and reducing adverse events in assist device therapy were issues in 2023. Finally, the aortic diameter related to adverse events and technical aspects of surgery dominated in aortic surgery. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It cannot be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for patient-specific decision-making.

Infarct-related artery only revascularization versus multi-vessel revascularization for patients with Killip I-IV acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularization strategy for non-culprit vessels is still up for debate nowadays, particularly when it comes to individuals with different Killip classes. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate whether multivessel revascularization, as compared with infarct-related artery (IRA) alone revascularization, improves long-term prognosis in patients who have experienced an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and have multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data from 646 patients who presented with AMI and multivessel CAD at Beijing Chaoyang hospital between November 2014 and November 2020. Based on various revascularization strategies, patients were categorised into two groups: IRA-only revascularization (n = 416) and multivessel revascularization (n = 230). The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

In the following 60.6 months (60.6 ± 23.9), the primary endpoint occurred in 3% of the multivessel revascularization group versus 9.6% in the IRA-only revascularization group (HR 0.284, CI 0.120-0.669, p = 0.002). For the Killip I-II patients (n = 533), the primary endpoint occurred in 2.6% of the multivessel revascularization group versus 9.5% in the IRA-only revascularization group (HR 0.236, CI 0.083-0.667, p = 0.003). For Killip III-IV patients (n = 113), there was no significance differences in the primary endpoint. After using the inverse probability weighted method, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Multivessel revascularization significantly reduced the incidence of cardiovascular death for patients presenting with AMI and multivessel CAD, particularly for Killip I-II patients. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome across the groups of patients with Killip III-IV.

Immediate or staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome by number of diseased vessels: a substudy of the BIOVASC randomised trial

BACKGROUND

In patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the number of diseased vessels may affect the efficacy of a complete revascularisation strategy.

AIMS

The authors sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of immediate complete revascularisation (ICR) and staged complete revascularisation (SCR) in patients presenting with ACS stratified by the number of diseased vessels.

METHODS

In this prespecified analysis of the BIOVASC trial, ICR was compared with SCR in patients with two-vessel disease (2VD) or three-vessel disease (3VD). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), any unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation or cerebrovascular events at 1 year after the index procedure. Comparisons were performed using Cox regression.

RESULTS

A total of 1,525 patients were enrolled in the BIOVASC trial, of whom 1,177 presented with 2VD and 265 with 3VD. In the 2VD group, 613 patients were assigned to ICR and 564 to SCR. In the 3VD group, 117 patients were assigned to ICR and 148 to SCR. ICR and SCR led to similar results in both the 2VD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-1.13; p=0.18) and 3VD groups (HR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.39-1.59; p=0.51) (pinteraction=0.91) in terms of the primary endpoint. ICR was associated with a lower rate of MI in patients with 3VD (HR 0.21, 95% CI: 0.046-0.93; p=0.04) (pinteraction=0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

ICR might be an option in patients presenting with extensive 3VD and might be associated with a lower rate of myocardial infarction compared with SCR.

Immediate multivessel revascularization after myocardial infarction: change of strategy?

Multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) is a frequently encountered condition in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit vessel. Several studies have demonstrated the benefit of complete coronary revascularization compared with the treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with STEMI. Based on this evidence, the current European guidelines recommend that in haemodynamically stable patients with STEMI and MVD, routine complete revascularization should be achieved either during the same procedure in concomitance with the treatment of the culprit lesion (immediate multivessel PCI) or with a subsequent intervention within 45 days from the index PCI of the culprit lesion (deferred multivessel PCI). However, the guidelines do not express a preference for immediate vs. delayed multivessel PCI. Therefore, the optimal timing of the treatment of non-culprit lesions in patients with STEMI and haemodynamic stability is still debated and has been evaluated in recent studies that showed the non-inferiority of immediate vs. delayed multivessel PCI. The article discusses the results and clinical implications of these studies on the timing of complete revascularization of non-culprit lesions in haemodynamically stable patients with STEMI.

Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease

The proportion of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in individuals experiencing acute coronary syndrome (ACS) varies based on age and ACS subtype. In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) without cardiogenic shock, the prognostic benefit of complete revascularization has been demonstrated by several randomized trials and meta-analyses, leading to a strong guideline recommendation. However, similar data are lacking for ACS without ST-segment elevation (NSTE-ACS). Non-randomized data suggesting a benefit from complete revascularization in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) are prone to selection bias and should be interpreted with caution. A series of large randomized controlled trials have been initiated recently to address these open questions.

Timing of Complete Multivessel Revascularization in Patients Presenting With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Complete revascularization of the culprit and all significant nonculprit lesions in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD) reduces major adverse cardiac events, but optimal timing of revascularization remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and MVD.

METHODS

This prespecified substudy of the BIOVASC (Percutaneous Complete Revascularization Strategies Using Sirolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Coated Stents in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease) trial included patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD. Risk differences of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (UIDR), or cerebrovascular events and its individual components were compared between ICR and SCR at 1 year.

RESULTS

The BIOVASC trial enrolled 1,525 patients; 917 patients presented with NSTE-ACS, of whom 459 were allocated to ICR and 458 to SCR. Incidences of the primary composite outcome were similar in the 2 groups (7.9% vs 10.1%; risk difference 2.2%; 95% CI: -1.5 to 6.0; P = 0.15). ICR was associated with a significant reduction of MIs (2.0% vs 5.3%; risk difference 3.3%; 95% CI: 0.9 to 5.7; P = 0.006), which was maintained after exclusion of procedure-related MIs occurring during the index or staged procedure (2.0% vs 4.4%; risk difference 2.4%; 95% CI: 0.1 to 4.7; P = 0.032). UIDRs were also reduced in the ICR group (4.2% vs 7.8%; risk difference 3.5%; 95% CI: 0.4 to 6.6; P = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

ICR is safe in patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD and was associated with a reduction in MIs and UIDRs at 1 year.

Immediate vs. multistage revascularization of non-infarct coronary artery(-ies) in patients with hemodynamically stable multivessel disease acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Untreated multivessel disease (MVD) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been linked to a higher risk of recurrent ischemia and death within one year . Current guidelines recommend percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for significant non-infarct artery (-ies) (non-IRA) stenosis in hemodynamically stable AMI patients with MVD, either during or after successful primary PCI, within 45-days. However, deciding the timing of revascularization for non-IRA in cases of MVD is uncertain.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed based on PRISMA guidelines after registering in PROSPERO (CRD42023472652). Databases were searched for relevant articles published before 10 November 2023. Pertinent data from the included studies were extracted and analyzed using RevMan v5.4.

RESULTS

Out of 640 studies evaluated, there were 13 RCTs with 5144 patients with AMI with MVD. The immediate non-IRA PCI is associated with a significantly lower occurrence of unplanned ischemia-driven PCI (OR 0.60; confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.83) and target-vessel revascularization (OR 0.72; CI 0.53-0.97) . Although there is a favorable trend for major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), nonfatal AMI, cerebrovascular events, and major bleeding in the immediate non-culprit artery (-ies) PCI, those were statistically non-significant. Similarly, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stent thrombosis, and acute renal insufficiency did not show significant differences between two groups.

CONCLUSION

Among hemodynamically stable patients with multivessel AMI, the immediate PCI strategy was superior to the multistage PCI strategy for the unplanned ischemia-driven PCI and target-vessel revascularization while odds are favorable in terms of MACCE, nonfatal AMI, cerebrovascular events, and major bleeding at longest follow-up.

Complete Revascularization Strategies in Women and Men With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease

This prespecified substudy of the randomized Percutaneous Complete Revascularization Strategies Using Sirolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Coated Stents in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease (BIOVASC) trial aimed to compare immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, stratified by gender. The primary end point consisted of a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular events at 1-year follow-up. The secondary end points included the individual components of the primary composite and major bleedings. We used Cox regression models to relate randomized treatment with study end points. We evaluated the multiplicative and additive interactions between gender and randomized treatment. The BIOVASC trial enrolled 338 women and 1,187 men. Women were older than men (median age 71.6 vs 63.7 years, p <0.001) and had a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10.1% vs 5.6%, p = 0.003), renal insufficiency (7.7% vs 4.4%, p = 0.015), and hypertension (60.4% vs 51.7%, p = 0.005). In women, the composite primary outcome occurred in 7.3% versus 12.9% (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 1.08) in patients randomly allocated to ICR and SCR, respectively, and in men in 7.7% versus 8.4% (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.34), with no evidence of a differential effect (interaction pmultiplicative = 0.20, padditive = 0.87). No evidence of heterogeneity between women and men was found when comparing ICR with SCR in terms of the secondary outcomes. In conclusion, no differential treatment effect was found when comparing ICR versus SCR in women or men presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease.

Meta-analysis of immediate complete vs staged complete revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown varying results between immediate and staged complete percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). We conducted a meta-analysis to reconcile the findings.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for RCTs comparing immediate vs staged complete PCI in patients presenting with ACS. The outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization (TVR), cerebrovascular events, bleeding and acute kidney injury (AKI)/contrast induced nephropathy (CIN). Risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs with a total of 3637 patients - 1821 in the immediate PCI group and 1816 in the staged PCI group, were included. The mean age was 64 years, 78 % of patients were men and the mean duration of follow up was 1 year. As compared with staged complete PCI, the immediate PCI group was associated with significant reduction of MI (RR 0.53, 95 % CI 0.36-0.77) and TVR (RR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.53-0.90). The risks of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, MACE, cerebrovascular events, stent thrombosis, bleeding and AKI/CIN were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In ACS patients selected for complete revascularization strategy, multivessel PCI during the index procedure may be associated with significant reduction in the risk of MI and TVR without harm when compared with a staged PCI strategy.

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.

Twenty-five-year trends in incidence, angiographic appearance, and management of spontaneous coronary artery dissection

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) has been described as an infrequent cause of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Knowledge about the disease is still limited and SCAD might still be underdiagnosed.

OBJECTIVES

Trends in incidence, presentation, angiographic appearance, management, and outcomes of SCAD over 25 years were analyzed.

METHODS

Patients with SCAD between 1997 and 2021 at the University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, were included. Incidences were assessed as total numbers and proportions of ACS cases. Clinical data were collected from medical records and angiographic findings were reviewed. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as the composite of all-cause death, cardiac arrest, SCAD recurrence or progression, other myocardial infarction, and stroke.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-six SCAD cases were included in this study. The incidence increased significantly in total (p < 0.001) and relative to ACS cases (p < 0.001). This was based on an increase of shorter lesions (p = 0.004), SCAD type 2 (p < 0.001), and lesions in side branches (p = 0.014), whereas lesions in the left main coronary artery and proximal segments were decreasing (p-values 0.029 and < 0.001, respectively). There was an increase in conservative therapy (p < 0.001). The rate of MACE (24%) was stable, however, there was a reduced proportion of patients with a need for intensive care treatment (p = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

SCAD represents an important entity of ACS that still might be underappreciated. The increasing incidence of SCAD is likely based on better awareness and familiarity with the disease. A lower need for intensive care treatment suggests positive effects of the increasing implementation of conservative management.

Quantitative Flow Ratio to Predict Non-Target-Vessel Events Before Planned Staged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

The optimal time point of staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains a matter of debate. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel noninvasive method to assess the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses. We aimed to investigate whether QFR could refine the timing of staged PCI of non-target vessels (non-TVs) on top of clinical judgment for patients with ACS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

For this cohort study, patients with ACS from Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, scheduled to undergo out-of-hospital non-TV staged PCI were eligible. The primary end point was the composite of non-TV myocardial infarction and urgent unplanned non-TV PCI before planned staged PCI. The association between lowest QFR per patient measured in the non-TV (from index angiogram) and the primary end point was assessed using multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards regressions with QFR included as linear or penalized spline (nonlinear) term. QFR was measured in 1093 of 1432 patients with ACS scheduled to undergo non-TV staged PCI. Median time to staged PCI was 28 days. The primary end point occurred in 5% of the patients. In multivariable analysis (1018 patients), there was no independent association between non-TV QFR and the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.69-1.05] per 0.1 increase; P=0.125; nonlinear P=0.648).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with ACS scheduled to undergo staged PCI at a median of 4 weeks after index PCI, QFR did not emerge as an independent predictor of non-TV events before planned staged PCI. Thus, this study does not provide conceptual evidence that QFR is helpful to refine the timing of staged PCI on top of clinical judgment.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02241291.

Immediate versus staged complete revascularization in acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend a complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). However, its optimal timing is unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes following immediate versus staged CR in ACS.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were searched until March 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate versus staged CR. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) at the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), any unplanned revascularization, target-vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombosis. Safety outcomes were major bleeding, contrast volume, procedure duration, and length of hospitalization.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included (3559 patients, weighted mean follow-up 12.5 months). There were no differences in the primary endpoint (OR 0.74, 95%CI: 0.54-1.01) and in the secondary endpoints of death, and stent thrombosis between the two CR strategies. Immediate CR was associated with a lower risk of recurrent MI (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.76), any unplanned revascularization (OR 0.59, 95%CI: 0.43-0.80), and TVR (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.84) compared to staged CR. Immediate CR was also associated with lower total contrast volume and shorter total procedure duration and hospitalization length compared to staged CR without differences in major bleedings.

CONCLUSION

No difference was found between immediate and staged CR regarding MACE, or deaths rates at one year. Immediate CR may be associated with a lower risk of recurrent MI and unplanned coronary revascularization than staged CR.

Timing of Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel coronary artery disease, the time at which complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions should be performed remains unknown.

METHODS

We performed an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial at 37 sites in Europe. Patients in a hemodynamically stable condition who had STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; immediate group) or PCI of the culprit lesion followed by staged multivessel PCI of nonculprit lesions within 19 to 45 days after the index procedure (staged group). The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year after randomization. The percentages of patients with a primary or secondary end-point event are provided as Kaplan-Meier estimates at 6 months and at 1 year.

RESULTS

We assigned 418 patients to undergo immediate multivessel PCI and 422 to undergo staged multivessel PCI. A primary end-point event occurred in 35 patients (8.5%) in the immediate group as compared with 68 patients (16.3%) in the staged group (risk ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.72; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P<0.001 for superiority). Nonfatal myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization occurred in 8 patients (2.0%) and 17 patients (4.1%), respectively, in the immediate group and in 22 patients (5.3%) and 39 patients (9.3%), respectively, in the staged group. The risk of death from any cause, the risk of stroke, and the risk of hospitalization for heart failure appeared to be similar in the two groups. A total of 104 patients in the immediate group and 145 patients in the staged group had a serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients in hemodynamically stable condition with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, immediate multivessel PCI was noninferior to staged multivessel PCI with respect to the risk of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year. (Supported by Boston Scientific; MULTISTARS AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03135275.).

Complete Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization in Acute Coronary Syndromes With Multivessel Coronary Disease: A Systematic Review

Multivessel disease (MVD) affects approximately 50% of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and is significantly burdened by poor outcomes and high mortality. It represents a clinical challenge in patient management and decision making and subtends an evolving research area related to the pathophysiology of unstable plaques and local or systemic inflammation. The benefits of complete revascularization are established in hemodynamically stable ACS patients with MVD, and guidelines provide some reference points to inform clinical practice, based on an evidence level that is solid for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and less robust for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. However, several areas of uncertainty remain, such as the optimal timing for complete revascularization or the best guiding strategy for intermediate stenoses. We performed a systematic review of current evidence in the field of percutaneous revascularization in ACS and MVD, also including future perspectives from ongoing trials that will directly compare different timing strategies and investigate the role of invasive and noninvasive guidance techniques. (Complete percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease; CRD42022383123).

Complete surgical revascularization after NSTEMI and unstable angina in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: Institutional experience

INTRODUCTION

The feasibility and standardization of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and unstable angina (UA) remain topics of ongoing debate. In this study, feasibility and early-term outcomes of CABG in patients with NSTE-ACS and UA were discussed.

METHODS

This study enrolled 79 patients who underwent on-pump CABG with complete revascularization between January 2020 and May 2022. the survival rates analyzed using Kaplan Meier test with log rank test. The p value of statistical significance was taken as below 0.05.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, the patients had a mean age of 60.9 years and a BMI of 28.0. The medical history included hypertension (50.6%), peripheral arterial disease and atrial fibrillation (12.7%), and other comorbidities such as COPD (22.8%) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (44.3%). Intraoperatively, the mean distal anastomosis count was 3.4, with average cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times of 84.0 and 49.0 min, respectively. Early-term outcomes revealed low rates of mortality (2.5%) and complications such as myocardial infarction (1.3%), acute kidney injury (5.1%) and transient ischemic attack (5.1%). Post-discharge outcomes demonstrated low cardiac and all-cause mortality rates (2.5% and 3.8%, respectively) and a high overall survival rate (93.7%) at 12-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the feasibility and positive outcomes of complete surgical revascularization in patients with UA and NSTE-ACS. It showed no graft occlusion or stroke, low complication rates and promising survival outcomes. Further research is needed for confirmation and to establish the procedure's efficacy and safety in this patient population.

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.

Propensity Matched Comparison of Clinical Outcome After Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease

Complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD) improves clinical outcomes compared with culprit-only revascularization, but the optimal timing for non-culprit lesions treatment remains unclear. This study evaluated patients presenting with ACS and MVD admitted between January 2015 and September 2021 at the Erasmus University Medical Center. Clinical outcomes were compared between immediate and staged CR in terms of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and any unplanned revascularization. A total of 1,400 patients presenting with ACS and MVD who underwent immediate or staged CR were included in this study. Using 1/many propensity score matching without replacement, 299 patients in the staged CR group were matched to 598 patients in the immediate CR group (mean 1:2 ratio), rendering a total of 897 patients for analysis. The median follow-up period was 648 days. MACCE rate was significantly higher in the staged CR group than in the immediate CR group (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.60 [1.05 to 2.45], p = 0.03). Furthermore, number of stents, stent length, and contrast usage were significantly greater in the staged revascularization group. Immediate CR was associated with less risk of MACCE than was staged CR. Staged CR required overall more contrast and stent material.

Acute Coronary Syndrome Presenting during On- and Off-Hours: Is There a Difference in a Tertiary Cardiovascular Center?

Background and Objectives: ACS presents an acute manifestation of coronary artery disease and its treatment is based on timely interventional diagnostics and PCI. It has been known that the treatment and the outcomes are not the same for all the patients with ACS during the working day, depending on the availability of the procedures and staff. The aim of the study was to explore the differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients admitted for ACS during on- and off-hours. Materials and Methods: The retrospective study included 1873 consecutive ACS patients admitted to a tertiary, university hospital that underwent coronary angiography and intervention. On-hours were defined from Monday to Friday from 07:30 h to 14:30 h, while the rest was considered off-hours. Results: There were more males in the off-hours group (on-hours 475 (56%) vs. off-hours 635 (62%); p = 0.011), while previous MI was more frequent in the on-hours group (on 250 (30%) vs. off 148 (14%); p < 0.001). NSTEMI was more frequent during on-hours (on 164 (19%) vs. off 55 (5%); p < 0.001), while STEMI was more frequent during off-hours (on 585 (69%) vs. off 952 (93%); p < 0.001). Patients admitted during on-hours had more multivessel disease (MVD) (on 485 (57%) vs. off 489 (48%); p = 0.006), as well as multivessel PCI (on 187 (22%) vs. off 171 (16%); p = 0.002), while radial access was preferred in off-hours patients (on 692 (82%) vs. off 883 (86%); p = 0.004). Left main PCI was performed with similar frequency in both groups (on 37 (4%) vs. off 35 (3%); p = 0.203). Death occurred with similar frequency in both groups (on 17 (2.0%) vs. off 26 (2.54%); p = 0.404), while major adverse cardio-cerebral events (MACCEs) were more frequent in the on-hours group (on 105 (12.4%) vs. off 70 (6.8%); p = 0.039) probably due to the more frequent repeated PCI (on 49 (5.8%) vs. off 27 (2.6%); p = 0.035). Conclusions: Patients admitted for ACS during working hours in a tertiary hospital present with more complex CAD, have more demanding interventions, and experience more MACCEs during follow-up mostly due to myocardial infarctions and repeated procedures.

Comparison of Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularisation in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Non-randomized Studies

Acute myocardial infarction is a critical medical condition that poses a significant health burden, leading to substantial morbidity. Despite advancements in medical care, managing this condition is challenging for patients and society. The preferred approach appears to be comprehensive multivessel revascularization, yet the optimal timing remains uncertain. This study aims to compare immediate complete revascularisation and stage complete vascularization in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). The Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines conducted the present meta-analysis. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using online databases, including PubMed, and EMBASE from 2010 onwards, to identify articles that compared cardiovascular outcomes between patients undergoing immediate and staged complete revascularization. We also searched Google Scholar for additional studies relevant to the present meta-analysis. The primary outcome assessed in this study was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization. A total of 15 studies fulfilled pre-defined eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. Our analysis shows that staged revascularization is associated with improved outcomes in patients with ACS and multivessel CAD, including all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, without increasing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, and the need for unplanned revascularization.

Impact of Complete Revascularization on Development of Heart Failure in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease: A Subanalysis of the CORALYS Registry

Background The impact of complete revascularization (CR) on the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains to be elucidated. Methods and Results Consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome with multivessel coronary artery disease from the CORALYS (Incidence and Predictors of Heart Failure After Acute Coronary Syndrome) registry were included. Incidence of first hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death was the primary end point. Patients were stratified according to completeness of coronary revascularization. Of 14 699 patients in the CORALYS registry, 5054 presented with multivessel disease. One thousand four hundred seventy-three (29.2%) underwent CR, while 3581 (70.8%) did not. Over 5 years follow-up, CR was associated with a reduced incidence of the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51-0.85]), first HF hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.49-0.90]) along with all-cause death and cardiovascular death alone (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56-0.97] and HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.38-0.84], respectively). The results were consistent in the propensity-score matching population and in inverse probability treatment weighting analysis. The benefit of CR was consistent across acute coronary syndrome presentations (HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.89] for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.50-0.99] for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome) and in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >40% (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.37-0.72]), while no benefit was observed in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.37-1.10], P for interaction 0.04). Conclusions CR after acute coronary syndrome reduced the risk of first hospitalization for HF and cardiovascular death, as well as first HF hospitalization, and cardiovascular and overall death both in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04895176.

Moving toward Precision Medicine in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Multimodal Assessment of Non-Culprit Lesions

Patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease experience several recurrent adverse events that lead to poor outcomes. Given the complexity of treating these patients, and the extremely high risk of long-term adverse events, the assessment of non-culprit lesions becomes crucial. Recently, two trials have shown a possible clinical benefit into treat non-culprit lesions using a fraction flow reserve (FFR)-guided approach, compared to culprit-lesion-only PCI. However, the most recent FLOW Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (FLOWER-MI) trial did not show a benefit of the use of FFR-guided PCI compared to an angiography-guided approach. Otherwise, intracoronary imaging using optical coherence tomography (OCT), intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), or near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) could provide both quantitative and qualitative assessments of non-culprit lesions. Different studies have shown how the characterization of coronary lesions with intracoronary imaging could lead to clinical benefits in these peculiar group of patients. Moreover, non-invasive evaluations of NCLs have begun to take ground in this context, but more insights through adequately powered and designed studies are needed. The aim of this review is to outline the available techniques, both invasive and non-invasive, for the assessment of multivessel disease in patients with STEMI, and to provide a systematic guidance on the assessment and approach to these patients.