Compared Outcomes of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients with Multivessel Disease Treated with Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Preserved Fractional Flow Reserve of Non-Culprit Lesions Treated Conservatively and of Those with Low Fractional Flow Reserve Managed Invasively: Insights from the FLOWER MI trial

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

BACKGROUND

Multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is present in 30% to 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 nonfatal 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.

Complete Revascularisation Following Acute MI: A Contemporary Review

Acute MI (AMI) is a leading cause of mortality globally. Swift diagnosis is imperative, with timely reperfusion crucial to minimise adverse outcomes. Revascularisation strategies include culprit-vessel-only therapy, staged complete revascularisation or immediate complete revascularisation. Evidence from randomised trials strongly favours complete revascularisation in ST-elevation MI (STEMI). Data regarding immediate complete revascularisation compared to a staged approach are limited, with uncertainties regarding the advantages of physiology-guided treatment compared to angiographic assessment alone. Non-STEMI (NSTEMI) patients with multivessel disease are often complex and current guidelines offer limited recommendations for this patient group, emphasising the need for individualised treatment. Observational studies have sought to find the optimal approach, yet conflicting data prevails. Dedicated trials for this issue in NSTEMI patients are currently unavailable. To enhance the decision-making processes for patients with AMI, future trials should consider the inclusion of functional health status and health-related quality of life outcomes. The existing gaps in knowledge underscore the intricacies of managing AMI and the ongoing necessity for comprehensive research to refine treatment strategies.

Fractional flow reserve-guided complete vs. culprit-only revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease: a meta-analysis

Background

Among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease, whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) guided complete revascularization (CR) is superior to the now widely used culprit-only (COR) revascularization is unclear.

Methods

We conducted a search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CNKI for randomized controlled trials comparing FFR-guided CR with COR in STEMI patients with multivessel disease. Data extraction and analysis adhered to Cochrane guidelines, with major adverse cardiac events as the primary outcome.

Results

This meta-analysis included 6 trials involving 3,482 patients. FFR-guided CR was associated with a reduction in major adverse cardiac events (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46-0.94, 95% PI: 0.20-2.19), ischemia-driven revascularization (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.19-0.40, 95% PI: 0.16-0.46), and repeat percutaneous coronary interventions (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.22-0.50, 95% PI: 0.16-0.78) compared to COR. However, no difference was observed in all-cause mortality (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.86-1.46, 95% PI: 0.79-1.58) or safety outcomes.

Conclusion

FFR-guided CR reduces major adverse cardiac events compared to COR, though benefits may vary across settings. It significantly lowers ischemia-driven revascularization and repeat percutaneous coronary interventions, with no difference in all-cause mortality compared to COR.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024567524, PROSPERO (CRD42024567524).

Association Between Physiological Significance and Vulnerable Plaque Characteristics in Patients With Myocardial Infarction: A Prospect II Substudy

BACKGROUND

Hemodynamically obstructive coronary plaques may contain more vulnerable plaque characteristics than nonobstructive lesions.

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to assess whether pressure-wire-based physiologic indices in nonculprit lesions are associated with vulnerable plaque characteristics.

METHODS

In the PROSPECT II study, patients with recent myocardial infarction underwent coronary angiography and culprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention plus combined near-infrared spectroscopy and intravascular ultrasound assessment of all 3 coronary arteries. Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements were performed in intermediate lesions with angiographic stenosis >40%.

RESULTS

Among 898 patients, 319 angiographically intermediate lesions in 275 patients had matched intravascular ultrasound/near-infrared spectroscopy and FFR/iFR measurements; 96 (30.1%) lesions were physiologically significant (FFR ≤0.80 or iFR ≤0.89) and 223 (69.9%) were not. Physiologically significant lesions, compared with those that were not, more likely had a minimal lumen area ≤4.0 mm2 (96.9% vs 83.9%), plaque burden ≥70% (92.7% vs 71.3%) and maximum lipid core burden index in any 4 mm segment of the lesion ≥324.7 (57.0% vs 45.4%). By multivariable analysis, lesion location in the left anterior descending artery, small minimal lumen area, and larger plaque burden were independently associated with physiologic significance, whereas maximum lipid core burden index in any 4 mm segment of the lesion was not.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with recent myocardial infarction, angiographically intermediate but physiologically significant coronary lesions were more likely to have high-risk vulnerable plaque features compared with nonphysiologically significant stenoses. However, coronary lesions without physiological significance also had a moderate-to-high prevalence of high-risk plaque characteristics, which may explain the residual risk associated with conservative noninterventional management of these lesions. (Providing Regional Observations to Study Predictors of Events in the Coronary Tree II [PROSPECT II]; NCT02171065).

Comparing FFR-Guided Complete Revascularization and Conservative Management for Non-Culprit Lesions in STEMI Patients With Multivessel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease, the optimal management strategy for non-culprit lesions is a subject of ongoing debate. There has been an increasing use of physiology-guidance to assess the extent of occlusion in non-culprit lesions, and hence the need for stenting. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is commonly used as a technique. This analysis compares FFR versus conservative management in the management of non-culprit lesions in STEMI patients with multivessel disease.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on databases from inception to May 25, 2024. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis using RevMan version 5.3.0, employing the Der-Simonian and Laird method to combine the data.

RESULTS

The analysis of five RCTs including 3759 patients revealed a significantly lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction and the need for repeat revascularization [PCI or CABG]) in the FFR group compared to the conservative management group (RR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44-0.96, p = 0.03). The revascularization rates were significantly lower in the FFR group (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43-0.66, p < 0.00001). Additionally, unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent repeat revascularization and any cause hospitalization were significantly lower in the FFR group (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.56-0.94, p = 0.01), and (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.46-0.84, p = 0.002), respectively. The FFR group had a higher risk of definite stent thrombosis (RR = 2.26, 95% CI: 1.10-4.64, p = 0.03). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, or myocardial infarction. Similarly, bleeding rates, cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs), and contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) were comparable between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support FFR-guided PCI to manage non-culprit lesions in STEMI patients with multivessel disease as it is potentially safe, with comparable rates of bleeding, CVAs and CIN. It also improves clinical outcomes, as well as reduces revascularization and hospitalization rates. The risk of stent thrombosis remains a concern, and hence the decision making for FFR-guided complete revascularization should take into account the complexity/risk of the procedure, as well as the patients' individual co-morbidities and preferences.

High-risk plaques in non-culprit lesions and clinical outcome after NSTEMI vs. STEMI

AIMS

Complete non-culprit (NC) revascularisation may help reduce recurrent events after non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), especially if NC lesions would harbour high-risk plaque (HRP) features similar to ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study aimed to assess differences in fractional flow reserve (FFR)-negative NC plaque morphology in patients presenting with NSTEMI vs. STEMI and assess the association of HRP morphology and clinical outcome.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the prospective PECTUS-obs study, 438 patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) underwent optical coherence tomography (OCT) of all FFR-negative intermediate NC lesions. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal MI or unplanned revascularisation) at 2-year follow-up. Four hundred and twenty patients had at least one analysable OCT, including 203 (48.3%) with NSTEMI and 217 (51.7%) with STEMI. The prevalence of HRPs, including thin-cap fibroatheromas, plaque rupture, and thrombus, was comparable between groups. MACE occurred in 29 (14.3%) NSTEMI patients and 16 (7.4%) STEMI patients (Puni-variable = 0.025 and Pmulti-variable = 0.270). Incidence of MACE was numerically higher among patients with HRP, irrespective of the clinical presentation at index (Pinteraction = 0.684). Among HRP criteria, plaque rupture was associated with MACE in both NSTEMI (P < 0.001) and STEMI (P = 0.020).

CONCLUSION

Presence of NC HRP is comparable between NSTEMI and STEMI and leads to numerically higher event rates in both. These results call for additional research on complete revascularisation in NSTEMI and treatment of HRP.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03857971.

[Treatment of functionally nonsignificant vulnerable plaques in multivessel STEMI: design of the VULNERABLE trial]

Introduction and objectives

The optimal treatment of nonculprit angiographic intermediate lesions (diameter stenosis 40%-69%) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is still unknown. Lesions with fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤ 0.80 are indicative of ischemia and benefit from revascularization. However, lesions with FFR > 0.80 and optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings of vulnerability have been hypothesized to cause adverse events during follow-up. The study aims to compare the efficacy of a preventive treatment with stent implantation plus optimal medical therapy vs optimal medical therapy alone for nonculprit intermediate lesions with FFR > 0.80 and OCT findings of plaque vulnerability in STEMI patients at 4 years of follow-up.

Methods

This parallel-group, multicenter, controlled, single-blind, and 1:1 randomized trial will enroll a total of 600 STEMI patients with ≥ 1 intermediate nonculprit lesions with FFR > 0.80 and OCT findings of plaque vulnerability. The primary endpoint is target vessel failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. The study will include a parallel registry of patients with FFR > 0.80 but without OCT findings of vulnerability. Vulnerable plaques are defined as lipid-rich fibroathermas with plaque burden ≥ 70% and a thin fibrous cap (≤ 80 mm).

Results

The VULNERABLE trial will reveal the role of preventive treatment with stent implantation for nonculprit and functionally nonsignificant vulnerable plaques in STEMI patients.

Conclusions

This is the first randomized trial of OCT-guided treatment of vulnerables plaques. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05599061).

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.

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.

[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.

Angiographic Severity of the Nonculprit Lesion and the Efficacy of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Complete Revascularization in Patients With AMI: FRAME-AMI Substudy

BACKGROUND

The benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for noninfarct-related artery (IRA) lesions with angiographically severe stenosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction is unclear.

METHODS

Among 562 patients from the FRAME-AMI trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non-Infraction Related Artery Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) who were randomly allocated into either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions, the current study evaluated the relationship between non-IRA stenosis measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and the efficacy of FFR-guided PCI. The incidence of the primary end point (death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) was compared between FFR- and angiography-guided PCI according to non-IRA stenosis severity (QCA stenosis ≥70% or <70%).

RESULTS

A total of 562 patients were assigned to FFR-guided (n=284) versus angiography-guided PCI (n=278). At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary end point occurred in 14 of 181 patients with FFR-guided PCI and 31 of 197 patients with angiography-guided PCI among patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (8.5% versus 19.2%; hazard ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.22-0.80]; P=0.008), while occurred in 4 of 103 patients with FFR-guided PCI and 9 of 81 patients with angiography-guided PCI among those with QCA stenosis <70% (3.9% versus 11.1%; P=0.315). There was no significant interaction between treatment strategy and non-IRA stenosis severity (P for interaction=0.636). FFR-guided PCI was associated with the reduction of death and myocardial infarction in both patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (6.7% versus 15.1%; P=0.008) and those with QCA stenosis <70% (1.0% versus 9.6%; P=0.042) compared with angiography-guided PCI.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, FFR-guided PCI tended to have a lower risk of primary end point than angiography-guided PCI regardless of non-IRA stenosis severity without significant interaction.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.

Fractional Flow Reserve-Negative High-Risk Plaques and Clinical Outcomes After Myocardial Infarction

Importance

Even after fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularization, patients with myocardial infarction (MI) have high rates of recurrent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). These recurrences may be caused by FFR-negative high-risk nonculprit lesions.

Objective

To assess the association between optical coherence tomography (OCT)-identified high-risk plaques of FFR-negative nonculprit lesions and occurrence of MACE in patients with MI.

Design, Setting, and Participants

PECTUS-obs (Identification of Risk Factors for Acute Coronary Events by OCT After STEMI [ST-segment elevation MI] and NSTEMI [non-STEMI] in Patients With Residual Non-flow Limiting Lesions) is an international, multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study. In patients presenting with MI, OCT was performed on all FFR-negative (FFR > 0.80) nonculprit lesions. A high-risk plaque was defined containing at least 2 of the following prespecified criteria: (1) a lipid arc at least 90°, (2) a fibrous cap thickness less than 65 μm, and (3) either plaque rupture or thrombus presence. Patients were enrolled from December 14, 2018, to September 15, 2020. Data were analyzed from December 2, 2022, to June 28, 2023.

Main Outcome and Measure

The primary end point of MACE, a composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, or unplanned revascularization, at 2-year follow-up was compared in patients with and without a high-risk plaque.

Results

A total of 438 patients were enrolled, and OCT findings were analyzable in 420. Among included patients, mean (SD) age was 63 (10) years, 340 (81.0) were men, and STEMI and non-STEMI were equally represented (217 [51.7%] and 203 [48.3%]). A mean (SD) of 1.17 (0.42) nonculprit lesions per patient was imaged. Analysis of OCT images revealed at least 1 high-risk plaque in 143 patients (34.0%). The primary end point occurred in 22 patients (15.4%) with a high-risk plaque and 23 of 277 patients (8.3%) without a high-risk plaque (hazard ratio, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.08-3.47]; P = .02), primarily driven by more unplanned revascularizations in patients with a high-risk plaque (14 of 143 [9.8%] vs 12 of 277 [4.3%]; P = .02).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients with MI and FFR-negative nonculprit lesions, the presence of a high-risk plaque is associated with a worse clinical outcome, which is mainly driven by a higher number of unplanned revascularizations. In a population with a high recurrent event rate despite physiology-guided complete revascularization, these results call for research on additional pharmacological or focal treatment strategies in patients harboring high-risk plaques.

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).

Why percutaneous revascularisation might not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction and mortality in patients with stable CAD?

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is widely adopted to treat chronic coronary artery disease. Numerous randomised trials have been conducted to test whether PCI may provide any prognostic advantage over oral medical therapy (OMT) alone, without definitive results. This has maintained the paradigm of OMT as the first-line standard of care for patients, reserving PCI for symptom control. In this review, we discuss the current evidence in favour and against PCI in stable coronary syndromes and highlight the pitfalls of the available studies. We offer a critical appraisal of the possible reasons why the existing data does not provide evidence supporting the role of PCI in improving clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary syndromes.

Applied coronary physiology for planning and guidance of percutaneous coronary interventions. A clinical consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the European Society of Cardiology

The clinical value of fractional flow reserve and non-hyperaemic pressure ratios are well established in determining an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). In addition, over the last 5 years we have witnessed a shift towards the use of physiology to enhance procedural planning, assess post-PCI functional results, and guide PCI optimisation. In this regard, clinical studies have reported compelling data supporting the use of longitudinal vessel analysis, obtained with pressure guidewire pullbacks, to better understand how obstructive CAD contributes to myocardial ischaemia, to establish the likelihood of functionally successful PCI, to identify the presence and location of residual flow-limiting stenoses and to predict long-term outcomes. The introduction of new functional coronary angiography tools, which merge angiographic information with fluid dynamic equations to deliver information equivalent to intracoronary pressure measurements, are now available and potentially also applicable to these endeavours. Furthermore, the ability of longitudinal vessel analysis to predict the functional results of stenting has played an integral role in the evolving field of simulated PCI. Nevertheless, it is important to have an awareness of the value and challenges of physiology-guided PCI in specific clinical and anatomical contexts. The main aim of this European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions clinical consensus statement is to offer up-to-date evidence and expert opinion on the use of applied coronary physiology for procedural PCI planning, disease pattern recognition and post-PCI optimisation.

Timing and modality of complete revascularization in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease

Approximately half of the patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction have also significant atherosclerotic disease affecting coronary segments other than the infarct-related artery. Optimal management of residual lesions in this clinical setting has been a topic of intense research in the last decade. On the one hand, a large body of evidence has consistently shown the benefit of complete revascularization for the reduction of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. On the other hand, some crucial aspects such as the optimal timing or the best strategy of the complete treatment approach remain a matter of controversy. In this review, we aim to provide a thorough critical appraisal of the available literature regarding this topic, by discussing areas of relative certainty, gaps in the knowledge, approach to specific clinical subsets and future research directions.

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography-guided strategy in acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a randomized trial

AIMS

In patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-infarct-related artery reduces death or MI. However, whether selective PCI guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is superior to routine PCI guided by angiography alone is unclear. The current trial sought to compare FFR-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI for non-infarct-related artery lesions among patients with acute MI and multivessel disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with acute MI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful PCI of the infarct-related artery were randomly assigned to either FFR-guided PCI (FFR ≤0.80) or angiography-guided PCI (diameter stenosis of >50%) for non-infarct-related artery lesions. The primary end point was a composite of time to death, MI, or repeat revascularization. A total of 562 patients underwent randomization. Among them, 60.0% underwent immediate PCI for non-infarct-related artery lesions and 40.0% were treated by a staged procedure during the same hospitalization. PCI was performed for non-infarct-related artery in 64.1% in the FFR-guided PCI group and 97.1% in the angiography-guided PCI group, and resulted in significantly fewer stent used in the FFR-guided PCI group (2.2 ± 1.1 vs. 2.5 ± 0.9, P < 0.001). At a median follow-up of 3.5 years (interquartile range: 2.7-4.1 years), the primary end point occurred in 18 patients of 284 patients in the FFR-guided PCI group and in 40 of 278 patients in the angiography-guided PCI group (7.4% vs. 19.7%; hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.75; P = 0.003). The death occurred in five patients (2.1%) in the FFR-guided PCI group and in 16 patients (8.5%) in the angiography-guided PCI group; MI in seven (2.5%) and 21 (8.9%), respectively; and unplanned revascularization in 10 (4.3%) and 16 (9.0%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In patients with acute MI and multivessel coronary artery disease, a strategy of selective PCI using FFR-guided decision-making was superior to a strategy of routine PCI based on angiographic diameter stenosis for treatment of non-infarct-related artery lesions regarding the risk of death, MI, or repeat revascularization.

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

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

Economic evaluation of fractional flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided multivessel revascularisation in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients in the FLOWER-MI randomised trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who have multivessel disease, the FLOWER-MI trial found no significant clinical benefit to fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to angiography-guided PCI.

AIMS

Our aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of FFR-guided PCI, the secondary endpoint of the FLOWER-MI trial.

METHODS

Costs, major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction [MI], and unplanned hospitalisation leading to urgent revascularisation), and quality-adjusted life years were calculated in both groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were estimated. Uncertainty was explored by probabilistic bootstrapping. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the health care provider with a time horizon of one year.

RESULTS

At one year, the average cost per patient was 7,560€ (±2,218) in the FFR-guided group and 7,089€ (±1,991) in the angiography-guided group (p-value<0.01). The point estimates for the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios found that the angiography-guided strategy was cost saving and improved outcomes, with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirming dominance.

CONCLUSIONS

The FFR-guided strategy at one year is unlikely to be cost effective compared to the angiography-guided strategy on both clinical and quality of life outcomes.

Advances in Clinical Cardiology 2021: A Summary of Key Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Over the course of 2021, 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 reviewed clinical trials presented at major cardiology conferences during 2021 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 150 key cardiology clinical trials were identified for inclusion. Interventional cardiology data included trials evaluating the use of new generation novel stent technology and new intravascular physiology strategies such as quantitative flow ratio (QFR) to guide revascularisation in stable and unstable coronary artery disease. New trials in acute coronary syndromes focused on shock, out of hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA), the impact of COVID-19 on ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) networks and optimal duration/type of antiplatelet treatment. Structural intervention trials included latest data on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and mitral, tricuspid and pulmonary valve interventions. Heart failure data included trials with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, sacubitril/valsartan and novel drugs such as mavacamten for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Prevention trials included new data on proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. In electrophysiology, new data regarding atrial fibrillation (AF) screening and new evidence for rhythm vs. rate control strategies were evaluated.

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.

FFR- Versus Angiography-Guided Revascularization for Nonculprit Stenosis in STEMI and Multivessel Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided versus angiography-guided approaches for nonculprit stenosis among patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease.

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy to guide revascularization of nonculprit stenosis among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease remains uncertain.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials evaluating the outcomes of culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided complete revascularization (CR), or FFR-guided CR. A pairwise meta-analysis comparing CR versus culprit-only revascularization and a network meta-analysis comparing the different revascularization techniques were conducted. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

RESULTS

The analysis included 11 trials with 8,195 patients. CR (ie, angiography-guided or FFR-guided CR) was associated with a lower incidence of MACE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.59), cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.98), recurrent myocardial infarction (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.95), and repeat ischemia-driven revascularization (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.35). Network meta-analysis demonstrated that the incidence of MACE was lower with both angiography-guided CR (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.58) and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.78) compared with a culprit-only approach, while there was no difference in risk for MACE between angiography-guided and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, CR, with angiographic or FFR guidance for nonculprit stenosis, was associated with lower incidence of adverse events compared with culprit-only revascularization. FFR-guided CR was not superior to angiography-guided CR in reducing the incidence of adverse events. Future studies investigating other tools to risk-stratify nonculprit stenoses are encouraged.

The year in cardiovascular medicine 2021: interventional cardiology

Since last year's report in the European Heart Journal, we have witnessed substantial progress in all aspects of interventional cardiology. Of note, the practice of interventional cardiology took place amidst successive waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to be a major burden for all healthcare professionals around the globe. In our yearly review, we shall revisit the developments in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), structural heart interventions, and adjunctive pharmacotherapy.