Post-PCI outcomes in STEMI patients with coronary ectasia: meta-analysis

Prognostic role of coronary artery ectasia in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease

AIMS

Coronary artery ectasia (CAE) has been linked to the occurrence of adverse events in patients with ischemia/angina and no obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA/ANOCA), while the relationship between CAE and myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) has been poorly investigated. In our study we aimed at assessing differences in clinical, angiographic and prognostic features among patients with CAE and MINOCA vs. INOCA/ANOCA presentation.

METHODS

Patients with angiographic evidence of CAE were enrolled at the University Hospital of Parma and divided into MINOCA vs. INOCA/ANOCA presentation. Clinical and quantitative angiographic information was recorded and the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was assessed at follow-up.

RESULTS

We enrolled a total of 97 patients: 49 (50.5%) with MINOCA and 48 (49.5%) with INOCA/ANOCA presentation. The presentation with MINOCA was associated with a higher frequency of inflammatory diseases ( P  = 0.041), multivessel CAE ( P  = 0.030) and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow < 3 ( P  = 0.013). At a median follow-up of 38 months, patients with MINOCA had a significantly higher incidence of MACE compared with those with INOCA/ANOCA [8 (16.3%) vs. 2 (4.2%), P  = 0.045], mainly driven by a higher rate of nonfatal MI [5 (10.2%) vs. 0 (0.0%), P  = 0.023]. At multivariate Cox regression analysis, the presentation with MINOCA ( P  = 0.039) and the presence of TIMI flow <3 ( P  = 0.037) were independent predictors of MACE at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Among a cohort of patients with CAE and nonobstructive coronary artery disease, the presentation with MINOCA predicted a worse outcome.

Long-term Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Pre-existing Coronary Artery Ectasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Coronary artery ectasia is associated with an increased risk of acute myocardial infarction. This meta-analysis evaluates outcomes following acute myocardial infarction in patients with pre-existing coronary artery ectasia. A search strategy was designed to utilize PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Google scholar for studies including the outcomes of acute myocardial infarction in patients with coronary artery ectasia from inception to February 10, 2022. We reported effect sizes as odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used I2 statistics to estimate the extent of unexplained statistical heterogeneity. There were 7 studies comprising 13,499 patients in the final analysis. There was no significant difference between patients with coronary ectasia and patients without coronary ectasia in terms of all-cause mortality (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; P = 0.79; I2 = 0%), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; OR 4.04; 95% CI 0.34 to 47.57; P = 0.17; I2 = 95%), myocardial re-infarction (OR 2.13; 95% CI 0.83 to 5.47; P = 0.08; I2 = 59%), target vessel revascularization (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.48; P = 0.21; I2 = 0%), or requiring mechanical supportive devices (OR 1.32; 95% CI 0.22 to 7.83; P = 0.57; I2 = 56%). Acute myocardial infarction in the presence of coronary artery ectasia is not associated with an increased risk of death, MACE, myocardial infarction, or the need for mechanical circulatory support.

Coronary Artery Aneurysms in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (From a United States Based National Cohort)

This study aimed to study group differences in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) based on the presence or absence of associated coronary artery aneurysms (CAA). The cause-and-effect relationship between CAAs and STEMI is largely unknown. The Nationwide Readmission database was used to identify and study group differences of patients with STEMI and with and without CAA from 2014 to 2018. The primary outcome in the 2 groups was mortality. Secondary outcomes in the 2 groups included differences in clinical outcomes, cardiovascular interventions performed, and prevalence of coronary artery dissection. The total number of patients with STEMI included was 1,038,299. In this sample, 1,543 (0.15%) had CAA. Compared with those without CAA, patients with CAAs and STEMI were younger (62.6 vs 65.4), more likely to be male (78 vs 66%), and had a higher prevalence of a history of Kawasaki disease (2.5 vs 0.01%). A difference exists in the prevalence of coronary dissection in patients with STEMI with and without CAA (73% vs 1%). Patients with CAA were more often treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (13.1 vs 5.6%), thrombectomy (16.5 vs 6%), and bare-metal stent implantation (8 vs 4.4). Patients in the CAA STEMI group had lower all-cause mortality (6.3 vs 11.7%). In conclusion, there are important differences in patients with STEMI with and without CAA, which include, but are not limited to, factors such as patient profile, the risk for coronary dissection, treatment, outcomes, and mortality.

Treatment and Outcome of Patients With Coronary Artery Ectasia: Current Evidence and Novel Opportunities for an Old Dilemma

Coronary artery ectasia (CAE) is defined as a diffuse or focal dilation of an epicardial coronary artery, which diameter exceeds by at least 1. 5 times the normal adjacent segment. The term ectasia refers to a diffuse dilation, involving more than 50% of the length of the vessel, while the term aneurysm defines a focal vessel dilation. CAE is a relatively uncommon angiographic finding and its prevalence ranges between 0.3 and 5% of patients undergoing coronary angiography. Although its pathophysiology is still unclear, atherosclerosis seems to be the underlying mechanism in most cases. The prognostic role of CAE is also controversial, but previous studies reported a high risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in these patients after percutaneous coronary intervention. Despite the availability of different options for the interventional management of patients with CAE, including covered stent implantation and stent-assisted coil embolization, there is no one standard approach, as therapy is tailored to the individual patient. The abnormal coronary dilation, often associated with high thrombus burden in the setting of acute coronary syndromes, makes the interventional treatment of CAE patients challenging and often complicated by distal thrombus embolization and stent malapposition. Moreover, the optimal antithrombotic therapy is debated and includes dual antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation, or a combination of them. In this review we aimed to provide an overview of the pathophysiology, classification, clinical presentation, natural history, and management of patients with CAE, with a focus on the challenges for both clinical and interventional cardiologists in daily clinical practice.

Long-term outcomes of ischemic post-conditioning primary PCI and conventional primary PCI in acute STEMI: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Data regarding ischemic postconditioning during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as compared conventional PCI alone has yielded conflicting results.

METHODS

Online databases comparing use of ischemic postconditioning percutaneous coronary intervention (ICP-PPCI) in STEMI patients with conventional PPCI were selected. Mortality, heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were evaluated. The primary outcome was composite of HF, MI, and mortality. Pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed using random-effects model.

RESULTS

Eight studies consisting of 2,566 patients (ICP-PPCI n = 1,228; PPCI n = 1,278) were included. The mean age for PPCI group was 61.38 ± 7.86 years (51% men) and for PCI 59.83 ± 8.94 years (47% men). There were no differences in outcome between ICP-PPCI and PPCI in terms of HF (RR 0.87 95% CI0.51-1.48; p = 0.29), MI (RR 1.28, 95%CI0.74-2.20; p = 0.20), mortality (RR 0.93, 95%CI0.64-1.34; p = 0.58), and MACE (RR 0.89, 95%CI0.74-1.07; p = 0.22). The results for composite event for the ICP-PPCI and PPIC procedures, at ≥1 year follow-up duration, were comparable (RR 1.00 95%CI0.82-1.22; p = 1).

CONCLUSION

Ischemic postconditioning post percutaneous coronary intervention in STEMI patients has no long-term benefits over conventional PCI.