Immediate versus delayed facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention: a pilot study

A comprehensive guide on the optimal timing of PCI in the setting of acute coronary syndrome: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Invasive revascularization is recommended for cohorts of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). However, the optimal timing of invasive revascularization is still controversial and no defined consensus is established. We aim to give a comprehensive appraisal on the optimal timing of invasive strategy in the heterogenous population of ACS.

METHODS

Relevant studies were assessed through PubMed, Scopus, Web of science, and Cochrane Library from inception until April 2023. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality were our primary outcomes of interest, other secondary outcomes were cardiac death, TVR, MI, repeat revascularization, recurrent ischemia, and major bleeding. The data was pooled as odds ratio (OR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random effect model using STATA 17 MP.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies comprising 21,443 patients were included in the analysis. Early intervention was favor to decrease all-cause mortality (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.98, p = 0.03), when compared to delayed intervention. Subgroup analysis showed that early intervention was significantly associated with all-cause mortality reduction in only NSTE-ACS (OR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.7 to 0.99], p = 0.04). However, there was no significant difference between early and delayed intervention in terms of MACE, cardiac death, TVR, MI, repeat revascularization, recurrent ischemia, and major bleeding.

CONCLUSION

An early intervention was associated with lower mortality rates compared to delayed intervention in NSTE-ACS with no significant difference in other clinical outcomes. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023415574.

Facilitated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The goal of the initial treatment for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is rapid and effective reperfusion. Randomized trials have demonstrated that primary angioplasty is preferred over thrombolysis if done in a timely manner and by an experienced team. However, due to many factors, performance of primary angioplasty within the goal of 90 min is often not possible. A combined strategy of immediate thrombolysis in the emergency room or in the ambulance followed by angioplasty theoretically could provide early reperfusion with subsequent angioplasty to insure complete reperfusion. Over 17 clinical trials have been reported. Compared with thrombolysis, facilitated angioplasty in the most recent trials has been shown to have a more favorable long-term outcome. Trials comparing facilitated angioplasty with full- or half-dose thrombolysis versus primary angioplasty have been far less favorable with the largest trial to date, the ASSENT (Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Treatment Strategy with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)-4 trial, demonstrating a worse outcome in the primary end point of death, congestive heart failure, or shock at 90 days. Pending the results of the FINESSE (Facilitated Intervention with Enhanced Reperfusion Speed to Stop Events) trial, current data suggest that facilitated angioplasty does not offer any advantage over primary angioplasty and may be harmful.

Is delayed facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention better than immediate in reperfused myocardial infarction? Six months follow up findings

BACKGROUND

There are several new strategies proposed to improve the outcome of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). One approach is the resurgent use of facilitated percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Until recently, deciding whether immediate PCI after combined treatment (facilitated PCI) is more appropriate than delayed PCI (short time) has not been investigated. The aim of this study, therefore, was to investigate the outcomes in patients initially successfully treated pharmacologically and immediate PCI < 2 hr, and in patients initially successfully treated with pharmacological therapy and with delayed PCI (12-72 h).

METHODS

451 reperfused STEMI patients, aged 18 to 75 years, class I-II Killip, with an acceptable echocardiographic window and admitted within 12 hs of the onset of symptoms were randomized into two groups. All patients had to have successful reperfusion, to receive the combination of a standard tirofiban infusion or abciximab plus half dose rtPA. Thereafter, patients were sub-grouped as follows:group 1 (immediate PCI) patients had PCI within 2 h; and group 2 (delayed PCI) patients in which PCI was performed after 12 hs and within 72 hs.

RESULTS

The 225 reperfused (immediate-PCI) and 226 reperfused (delayed-PCI) patients (time from randomization to PCI 165 +/- 37 min in immediate PCI versus 45.1 +/- 20.2 h in delayed PCI group) showed similar results in ejection fraction, CK release and patency of the IRA. In addition, the delayed PCI group showed a significant reduction in ischemic events, restenosis and bleedings (P = 0.005, 0.01, 0.01 respectively) and significant reduced angiographic evidence of thrombus formation in the infarction-related artery (IRA) (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest the safety and possible use of delayed facilitated PCI in patients with STEMI, and that delayed PCI in patients treated with combined lytic and IIb/IIIa inhibitors appears to be as effective and possibly superior (reduced ischemic events and repeat PCI) as immediate PCI. The patients in this study were successfully reperfused, with TIMI-3 flow and our data may not apply to patients with TIMI 0-2 flow. This strategy could allow transferring the reperfused patients and performing PCI after hours < 72 hours and not immediately, thereby reducing the number of urgent PCI and costs, obtaining similar results, but mostly causing less discomfort to the patient. Our results had to be interpreted with caution, because current guidelines do not recommend the combined therapy, but suggest further studies. The study was aimed to investigate the outcomes in patients initially successfully treated pharmacologically and immediate PCI < 2 h, and in patients initially successfully treated with pharmacological therapy and delayed PCI (12-72 h). All patients had to have successful reperfusion, to receive the combination of a standard abciximab or tirofiban infusion plus half dose rtPA. Similar results were observed in both groups. Delayed PCI group showed a significant lower incidence in restenosis (0.01), minor bleedings (0.005), ischemic events (0.01) and a reduced angiographic evidence of thrombus formation in IRA (0.001). Our data suggest the safety and possible use of delayed facilitated PCI in patients with STEMI. Our results had to be interpreted with caution, because current guidelines do not recommend the combined therapy, but suggest further studies.