Angiographically Guided Complete Revascularization Versus Selective Stress Echocardiography-Guided Revascularization in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: The CROSS-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial

Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Treatment for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Prespecified Analysis of the FRAME-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Complete revascularization by non-infarct-related artery (IRA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction is standard practice to improve patient prognosis. However, it is unclear whether a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided or angiography-guided treatment strategy for non-IRA PCI would be more cost-effective.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this prespecified cost-effectiveness analysis of the FRAME-AMI randomized clinical trial, patients were randomly allocated to either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions between August 19, 2016, and December 24, 2020. Patients were aged 19 years or older, had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI and underwent successful primary or urgent PCI, and had at least 1 non-IRA lesion (diameter stenosis >50% in a major epicardial coronary artery or major side branch with a vessel diameter of ≥2.0 mm). Data analysis was performed on August 27, 2023.

Intervention

Fractional flow reserve-guided vs angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The model simulated death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Future medical costs and benefits were discounted by 4.5% per year. The main outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of FFR-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. State-transition Markov models were applied to the Korean, US, and European health care systems using medical cost (presented in US dollars), utilities data, and transition probabilities from meta-analysis of previous trials.

Results

The FRAME-AMI trial randomized 562 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (11.4) years. Most patients were men (474 [84.3%]). Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI increased QALYs by 0.06 compared with angiography-guided PCI. The total cumulative cost per patient was estimated as $1208 less for FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI. The ICER was -$19 484 and the INB was $3378, indicating that FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed consistent results and the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness in FFR-guided PCI was 97%. When transition probabilities from the pairwise meta-analysis of the FLOWER-MI and FRAME-AMI trials were used, FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI in the Korean, US, and European health care systems, with an INB of $3910, $8557, and $2210, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness with FFR-guided PCI was 85%, 82%, and 31% for the Korean, US, and European health care systems, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that FFR-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions saved medical costs and increased quality of life better than angiography-guided PCI for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI should be considered in determining the treatment strategy for non-IRA stenoses in these patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02715518.

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).

Peak treadmill exercise echocardiography for ischemia detection

Of the stress echocardiographic methods, exercise should be the first choice for patients able to exercise, according to guidelines. Among ExE modalities, treadmill ExE with acquisition of images at peak exercise has several advantages, including high sensitivity and prognostic value. Overall, sensitivity of ExE is around 80%-85%, although figures for peak imaging on the treadmill are 85%-90%. Despite it, guidelines do not mention this method.

The optimal timing for non-culprit percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: A pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background and aims

Recently, several randomized trials have shown that patients with multivessel disease (MVD) often pursue complete revascularization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to improve their prognosis. However, the optimal time for the non-culprit artery has been controversial. This study aimed to determine the optimal strategy for revascularization in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing three revascularization strategies [i.e., complete revascularization at the index procedure (CR), complete revascularization as a staged procedure (SR), or culprit-only revascularization (COR)] in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were included. We performed both pairwise and network meta-analyses. Network meta-analysis was performed using mixed treatment comparison models.

Results

17 trials with 8568 patients were included. In the network meta-analysis, the most interesting finding was that staged revascularization increased the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) compared with complete revascularization at the index procedure [odds ratio (OR): 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07–3.49]. In the pairwise meta-analysis, complete revascularization reduced the incidence of MACE [risk ratio (RR): 0.62, 95% CI: 0.48–0.79, p < 0.001], mainly because it reduced the probability of unplanned repeat revascularization (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.33–0.75, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, or nonfatal re-myocardial infarction (MI).

Conclusion

Our analysis suggests that complete revascularization should be performed in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, and complete revascularization at the index procedure is superior to staged revascularization in reducing the risk of MACE events.

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.

CVIT expert consensus document on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) update 2022

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) has significantly contributed to reducing the mortality of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) even in cardiogenic shock and is now the standard of care in most of Japanese institutions. The Task Force on Primary PCI of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Interventional and Therapeutics (CVIT) society proposed an expert consensus document for the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) focusing on procedural aspects of primary PCI in 2018. Updated guidelines for the management of AMI were published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in 2017 and 2020. Major changes in the guidelines for STEMI patients included: (1) radial access and drug-eluting stents (DES) over bare-metal stents (BMS) were recommended as a Class I indication, (2) complete revascularization before hospital discharge (either immediate or staged) is now considered as Class IIa recommendation. In 2020, updated guidelines for Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) patients, the followings were changed: (1) an early invasive strategy within 24 h is recommended in patients with NSTEMI as a Class I indication, (2) complete revascularization in NSTEMI patients without cardiogenic shock is considered as Class IIa recommendation, and (3) in patients with atrial fibrillation following a short period of triple antithrombotic therapy, dual antithrombotic therapy (e.g., DOAC and single oral antiplatelet agent preferably clopidogrel) is recommended, with discontinuation of the antiplatelet agent after 6 to 12 months. Furthermore, an aspirin-free strategy after PCI has been investigated in several trials those have started to show the safety and efficacy. The Task Force on Primary PCI of the CVIT group has now proposed the updated expert consensus document for the management of AMI focusing on procedural aspects of primary PCI in 2022 version.

Economic evaluation of complete revascularization versus stress echocardiography-guided revascularization in the STEACS with multivessel disease

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Economic studies may help decision making in the management of multivessel disease in the setting of myocardial infarction. We sought to perform an economic evaluation of CROSS-AMI (Complete Revascularization or Stress Echocardiography in Patients With Multivessel Disease and ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction) randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

We performed a cost minimization analysis for the strategies (complete angiographic revascularization [ComR] and selective stress echocardiography-guided revascularization [SelR]) compared in the CROSS-AMI clinical trial (N=306), attributable the initial hospitalization and readmissions during the first year of follow-up, using current rates for health services provided by our health system.

RESULTS

The index hospitalization costs were higher in the ComR group than in SelR arm (19 657.9±6236.8 € vs 14 038.7±4958.5 €; P <.001). There were no differences in the costs of the first year of follow-up rehospitalizations between both groups for (ComR 2423.5±4568.0 vs SelR 2653.9±5709.1; P=.697). Total cost was 22 081.3±7505.6 for the ComR arm and 16 692.6±7669.9 for the SelR group (P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the CROSS-AMI trial, the initial extra economic costs of the ComR versus SelR were not offset by significant savings during follow-up. SelR seems to be more efficient than ComR in patients with ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease treated by emergent angioplasty. Study registred at ClinicalTrial.gov (Identifier: NCT01179126).

Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: JACC Historical Breakthroughs in Perspective

Over the last 4 decades, percutaneous coronary intervention has evolved dramatically and is now an acceptable treatment option for patients with advanced coronary artery disease. However, trialists have struggled to establish the respective roles for percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, especially in patients with multivessel disease and unprotected left-main stem coronary artery disease. Several pivotal trials and meta-analyses comparing these 2 revascularization strategies have enabled the relative merits of each technique to be established with regard to the type of ischemic syndrome, the coronary anatomy, and the patient's overall comorbidity. Precision medicine with individualized prognosis is emerging as an important method of selecting treatment. However, the never-ending advancement of technology, in conjunction with the emergence of novel pharmacological agents, will in the future continue to force us to reconsider the evolving question: "Which treatment strategy is better and for which patient?"

Exercise electrocardiography combined with stress echocardiography for predicting myocardial ischemia in adults

Myocardial ischemia (MI) has the highest mortality rate in the world. Traditional noninvasive MI examinations include exercise electrocardiography tests (EETs) and stress echocardiography (SE). Treadmill and dobutamine tests are commonly used as stress protocols. In the present study, 278 patients with suspected MI were examined, 66 of whom were diagnosed with MI and 212 did not show evidence of MI by coronary angiography (CAG)/coronary CT angiography (CCTA). All patients underwent clinical EET and SE evaluations prior to CAG/CCTA. All groups were compared based on specific clinical parameters including age, sex, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, underlying conditions and ejection fraction/fraction shortening. The data indicated superior diagnostic efficiency of the combined EET+SE method for the diagnosis of suspected MI compared with either EET or SE alone. The sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value and negative predictive value for detecting MI were excellent compared with those of traditional examinations. The diagnostic efficiency of the combination analysis may reduce the prevalence of MI and medical costs. The present study provided novel insight for the development of methods that may be used for MI detection and prediction.

Is there a role for ischemia detection after an acute myocardial infarction?

Coronary angiography and eventual revascularization have become the most common approaches for patients with acute coronary syndromes. Ischemia detection in this scenario is usually regarded as unnecessary for most of the patients. In fact, current guidelines recommend complete revascularization for patients with multivessel disease in the context of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, although it is in contrast with previous recommendations. However, some recent data suggested that ischemia could have a role for the decision of revascularization in these patients. The CROSS-AMI study randomized patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty and who also had multivessel disease to a complete anatomic revascularization of the non-infarct related artery lesions vs subsequent revascularization of the non-infarct related artery lesions only if ischemia was demonstrated by stress echocardiography. The main findings were that only 30% of the patients in the ischemia arm needed a second revascularization and that the outcome was similar in both arms. Regarding non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, coronary angiography is in general warranted for most of the patients. However, recent long-term published studies on patients randomized to an invasive or less aggressive approach based on ischemia detection have found no differences in outcome. The ultimate study in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome comparing ischemia detection with an invasive approach is pending. Therefore, ischemia detection might have a role for stratifying these subjects. This is particularly true in the current era of imaging of high quality and sensitivity, last generation stents, radial access and modern antithrombotic therapy.