Complete revascularization versus culprit-lesion only PCI in patients with NSTEMI and multivessel disease - Design and rationale of the randomized COMPLETE-NSTEMI trial: The COMPLETE-NSTEMI trial

BACKGROUND

Multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is present in 30-70% of patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) depending on varying age and risk profiles. In contrast to the STEMI cohort, there is only limited scientific evidence derived from randomized controlled trials directing the general decision for or against complete revascularization in the NSTEMI population.

PRIMARY HYPOTHESIS

The COMPLETE-NSTEMI trial aims to investigate whether multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior over culprit-lesion only PCI in patients with NSTEMI and multivessel CAD.

DESIGN

COMPLETE-NSTEMI is a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter, parallel group, open-label trial. It will enroll 3390 NSTEMI patients with multivessel CAD at 65 to 70 sites in Germany and Austria. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to either complete revascularization with PCI or culprit lesion-only PCI.

ENDPOINTS

The primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for non-fatal myocardial infarction during follow-up. The trial is event-driven and will be stopped as soon as 578 primary endpoint events and a minimal follow-up duration of 12 months for each patient are reached.

CURRENT STATUS

The first patient was enrolled at October 27, 2023. By April 2025, 51 sites have been activated and >500 patients have been randomized. Completion of recruitment is expected for the first half of 2027. The final results of the primary endpoint are expected in 2028.

OUTLOOK

COMPLETE NSTEMI will be the first dedicated trial to answer the question about the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with NSTEMI and multivessel CAD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT05786131.

The Evolving Field of Acute Coronary Syndrome Management: A Critical Appraisal of the 2023 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS), encompassing conditions like ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), represent a significant challenge in cardiovascular care due to their complex pathophysiology and substantial impact on morbidity and mortality. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for ACS management introduce several updates in key areas such as invasive treatment timing in NSTE-ACS, pre-treatment strategies, approaches to multivessel disease, and the use of imaging modalities including computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and intracoronary imaging techniques, such as optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). They also address a modulation of antiplatelet therapy, taking into consideration different patient risk profiles, and introduce new recommendations for low-dose colchicine. These guidelines provide important evidence-based updates in practice, reflecting an evolution in the understanding and management of ACS, yet some potentially missed opportunities for more personalized care and technology adoption are discussed.

[Management of acute coronary syndrome : ESC guidelines 2023]

The new guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) on the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in 2023 encompass updates for both the guidelines pertaining to ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and acute coronary syndrome without ST segment elevation (NSTE-ACS). The previously separated guidelines from 2017 and 2020 were therefore revised and summarized. These guidelines address various topics, including diagnostics, acute management, antithrombotic treatment, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, invasive strategies, and long-term treatment. The notable updates compared to earlier guidelines address the recommendation regarding the timing of invasive diagnostics in NSTE-ACS (Non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome), the procedure of revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease and alternative regimens for antithrombotic treatment in patients with a high risk of bleeding.

Impact of Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs. Culprit Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trials have shown that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-culprit lesions (NCLs) reduces the risk of adverse events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but the effect on long-term outcomes remains unclear in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients and a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study of ACS patients who underwent primary PCI between April 2004 and December 2017 at Juntendo University Shizuoka Hospital, Japan, was performed. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular disease death (CVD death) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) during the mean follow-up period of 2.7 years, and a landmark analysis for the incidence of the primary endpoint from 31 days to 5 years between the multivessel PCI group and the culprit only PCI group was performed. Multivessel PCI was defined as PCI including non-infarct-related coronary arteries within 30 days after the onset of ACS.

RESULTS

Of the 1109 ACS patients with multivessel coronary artery disease of the current cohort, multivessel PCI was performed in 364 (33.2 %) patients. The incidence of the primary endpoint from 31 days to 5 years was significantly lower in the multivessel PCI group (4.0 % vs. 9.6 %, log-rank p = 0.0008). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that multivessel PCI was significantly associated with fewer cardiovascular events (HR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.19-0.67, p = 0.0008).

CONCLUSION

In ACS patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, multivessel PCI may reduce the risk of CVD death and non-fatal MI compared to culprit-lesion-only PCI.

Complete revascularization in acute myocardial infarction: a clinical review

In patients with ST segment elevation and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI), multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease is found in approximately 50%, leading to worse clinical outcomes. Recent data have suggested that complete revascularization with MV percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events as compared to culprit vessel-only revascularization. However, the optimal timing of MV intervention, appropriate non-culprit lesion assessment, and the best revascularization strategy in specific subsets such as cardiogenic shock remain to be established. This review article summarizes current evidence on revascularization strategies in patients with acute MI and MV disease.

Treatment strategies of acute myocardial infarction: updates on revascularization, pharmacological therapy, and beyond

Owing to recent advances in early reperfusion strategies, pharmacological therapy, standardized care, and the identification of vulnerable patient subsets, the prognosis of acute myocardial infarction has improved. However, there is still considerable room for improvement. This review article summarizes the latest evidence concerning clinical diagnosis and treatment of acute myocardial infarction.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Fractional Flow Reserve and Angiography-Guided Complete Revascularization of Nonculprit Artery for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

This study aimed to compare complete revascularization (CR) guided by angiography with a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD). CR is preferred to culprit-only revascularization for patients with STEMI and MVD. However, whether FFR-guided CR is superior to angiography-guided CR is unclear in patients presenting with STEMI who have MVD. Randomized controlled trials comparing CR with an FFR- or angiography-guided strategy to culprit-only revascularization in patients with STEMI and MVD were systematically identified. A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed comparing clinical outcomes in the 3 arms. A total of 13 studies with a total of 8,927 patients were included in our analysis. Compared with culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided CR was associated with a significantly decreased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.82), all-cause death (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97), and cardiovascular death (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.85) but FFR-guided CR was not (MI: HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.12; cardiovascular death: HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.24; all-cause death: HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.18). The network meta-analysis comparison of angiography- versus FFR-guided CR showed an HR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.11) for all-cause death and an HR of 0.71 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.17) for MI. In conclusion, for patients with MVD presenting with STEMI, angiography-guided CR may provide additional benefits compared with FFR-guided CR.

Clinical use of physiological lesion assessment using pressure guidewires: an expert consensus document of the Japanese association of cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics-update 2022

Fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio are widely accepted and recommended in Western and Japanese guidelines for appropriate percutaneous coronary intervention. There are, however, many differences in clinical situations between Japan and Western countries. Therefore, the Task Force on coronary physiology of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (CVIT) has proposed an expert consensus document to summarize current evidence and suggest the practical use of physiological lesion assessment in Japan.

Instantaneous wave-free ratio for guiding treatment of nonculprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze the feasibility of a physiological coronary evaluation with the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) of nonculprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) successfully revascularized.

METHODS

A multicenter registry including patients of four high-volume PCI centers with ACS and underwent successful revascularization of the culprit vessel and had other nonculprit lesions that were physiologically evaluated with the iFR between January 2017 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, probable or definitive stent thrombosis and new revascularization (MACEs).

RESULTS

A total of 356 patients with 472 nonculprit lesions were included. The mean age was 66 ± 11 years. The clinical presentation was ACS without persistent ST-segment elevation (NSTE-ACS) in 235 patients (66%) and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in 121 patients (34%). After a median follow-up period of 21 (14-30) months, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 patients (9%). There were no differences in outcomes regarding clinical presentation (NSTEMI vs. NSTE-ACS, 9.1 vs. 8.9%, p_adj  = 0.570) or iFR induced treatment strategy (patients with all lesions revascularized vs. patients with at least one lesion with an iFR > 0.89 deferred for revascularization, 10.5 vs. 8.4%, p_adj  = 0.476).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the iFR to guide percutaneous coronary intervention decision making in nonculprit lesions seems to be feasible, with an acceptable percentage of MACEs at the mid-term follow-up. Patients with deferred revascularization of lesions without physiological significance and patients undergoing complete revascularization had a similar risk of MACEs.

Comparative Effectiveness of Complete Revascularization Strategies in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) should be available for revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) is controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy of various complete revascularization (CR) regimens for STEMI patients with MVD. The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases and clinicaltrial.gov were searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the FFR-guided CR, angiography-guided CR, and culprit-only revascularization (COR) strategies in STEMI patients with MVD. A Bayesian random-effect model was employed to synthesize the evidence in network meta-analysis. We used relative risk (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) as measures of effect size. The primary endpoint was the composite outcome of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction (MI). Twelve RCTs were included. Angiography-guided CR showed a lower event rate of the composite outcome (RR, 0.68; 95%CrI, 0.50–0.87), all-cause mortality (RR, 0.75; 95%CrI, 0.55–0.96), MI (RR, 0.63; 95%CrI, 0.43–0.86), and repeat revascularization (RR, 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.24–0.55) compared with COR. Additionally, angiography-guided CR had a lower risk of primary outcome (RR, 0.64; 95%CrI, 0.38–0.94) and MI (RR, 0.58; 95%CrI, 0.31–0.92) than FFR-guided CR. The difference between the FFR-guided CR and COR in terms of composite outcome, all-cause mortality, and MI was similar. Angiography-guided CR was associated with the highest probability of optimal treatment for the primary outcome (98.5%), followed by FFR-guided CR (1.2%) and COR (0.3%). STEMI patients with MVD benefitted more from angiography-guided CR than from FFR-guided CR. However, only one study compared the effectiveness of FFR-guided and angiography-guided PCI; thus, the comparison between FFR-guided and angiography-guided PCI relied on indirect evidence. Therefore, further studies directly comparing the effectiveness of these two CR strategies are warranted.

Patients with Moderate Non-Culprit Coronary Lesions of Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement was compared to dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) instable angina (SA) with stable coronary lesion (s) (SCL (s) ) in a few trials; however, similar comparisons in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with non-culprit lesion (s) (NCL (s) ) are lacking. Our objectives were to prospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of FFR with two different cutoff values (< 0.80 and < 0.75) relative to DSE in moderate (30%-70% diameter stenosis) NCLs (ACS group) and to compare these observations with those measured in SCLs (SA group). One hundred seventy-five consecutive patients with SA (n = 86) and ACS (n = 89) with 225 coronary lesions (109 SCLs and 116 NCLs) were enrolled. In contrast to the ACS cohort in SA patients, normal DSE was associated with higher FFR values compared to those with abnormal DSE (P = 0.051 versus P = 0.006). In addition, in the SA group, a significant correlation was observed between DSE (regional wall motion score index at peak stress) and FFR (r = -0.290; P = 0.002), whereas a similar association was absent (r = -0.029; P = 0.760) among ACS patients. In the SA group, decreasing the FFR cutoff value (< 0.80 versus < 0.75) improved the concordance of FFR with DSE (70.6% versus 81.7%) without altering its discriminatory power (area under the curve; 0.68 versus 0.63; P = 0.369), whereas in the ACS group, concordance remained similar (69.0% versus 71.6%) and discriminatory power decreased (0.62 versus 0.51; P = 0.049), respectively. In conclusion, lesion-specific FFR assessment may have different relevance in patients with moderate NCLs than in patients with SCLs.

Multivessel PCI Guided by FFR or Angiography for Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who have multivessel disease, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for nonculprit lesions (complete revascularization) is superior to treatment of the culprit lesion alone. However, whether complete revascularization that is guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is superior to an angiography-guided procedure is unclear.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI of the infarct-related artery to receive complete revascularization guided by either FFR or angiography. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization at 1 year.

RESULTS

The mean (±SD) number of stents that were placed per patient for nonculprit lesions was 1.01±0.99 in the FFR-guided group and 1.50±0.86 in the angiography-guided group. During follow-up, a primary outcome event occurred in 32 of 586 patients (5.5%) in the FFR-guided group and in 24 of 577 patients (4.2%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 2.23; P = 0.31). Death occurred in 9 patients (1.5%) in the FFR-guided group and in 10 (1.7%) in the angiography-guided group; nonfatal myocardial infarction in 18 (3.1%) and 10 (1.7%), respectively; and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in 15 (2.6%) and 11 (1.9%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with STEMI undergoing complete revascularization, an FFR-guided strategy did not have a significant benefit over an angiography-guided strategy with respect to the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization at 1 year. However, given the wide confidence intervals for the estimate of effect, the findings do not allow for a conclusive interpretation. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health and Abbott; FLOWER-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02943954.).