Cardiovascular magnetic resonance accurately detects obstructive coronary artery disease in suspected non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: a sub-analysis of the CARMENTA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is still the reference test in suspected non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), although a substantial number of patients do not have obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Early cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) may be a useful gatekeeper for ICA in this setting. The main objective was to investigate the accuracy of CMR to detect obstructive CAD in NSTEMI. METHODS: This study is a sub-analysis of a randomized controlled trial investigating whether a non-invasive imaging-first strategy safely reduced the number of ICA compared to routine clinical care in suspected NSTEMI (acute chest pain, non-diagnostic electrocardiogram, high sensitivity troponin T > 14 ng/L), and included 51 patients who underwent CMR prior to ICA. A stepwise approach was used to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CMR to detect (1) obstructive CAD (diameter stenosis ≥ 70% by ICA) and (2) an adjudicated final diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). First, in all patients the combination of cine, T2-weighted and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging was evaluated for the presence of abnormalities consistent with a coronary etiology in any sequence. Hereafter and only when the scan was normal or equivocal, adenosine stress-perfusion CMR was added. RESULTS: Of 51 patients included (63 ± 10 years, 51% male), 34 (67%) had obstructive CAD by ICA. The sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy of the first step to diagnose obstructive CAD were 79%, 71% and 77%, respectively. Additional vasodilator stress-perfusion CMR was performed in 19 patients and combined with step one resulted in an overall sensitivity of 97%, specificity of 65% and accuracy of 86%. Of the remaining 17 patients with non-obstructive CAD, 4 (24%) had evidence for a myocardial infarction on LGE, explaining the modest specificity. The sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy to diagnose ACS (n = 43) were 88%, 88% and 88%, respectively. CONCLUSION: CMR accurately detects obstructive CAD and ACS in suspected NSTEMI. Non-obstructive CAD is common with CMR still identifying an infarction in almost one-quarter of patients. CMR should be considered as an early diagnostic approach in suspected NSTEMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The CARMENTA trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with identifier NCT01559467.

Long-term outcome after deferred revascularization due to negative fractional flow reserve in intermediate coronary lesions.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to assess long-term outcome after deferring intervention of coronary lesions with a fractional flow reserve (FFR) value of >0.80 in a real-world patient population and then to identify factors associated with deferred target lesion failure (DTLF). BACKGROUND: Deferring coronary interventions of intermediate lesions based on FFR measurement is safe, irrespective of the extent of coronary artery disease. However, FFR values near the cut-off of >0.80 may have less favorable outcome. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed in patients with deferred coronary intervention based on FFR value >0.80. The primary endpoint was DTLF, a composite of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and any coronary revascularization, related to the initially deferred stenosis. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients, mean age of 66 ± 10 years, and 751 coronary lesions with negative FFR values (mean 0.88 ± 0.04) were included. The mean follow-up was 27 ± 15 months. DTLF occurred in 44 patients (7.3%), revascularization in 42 (7%), and ACS without revascularization in 2 patients (0.3%). Patients with DTLF more often had diabetes mellitus, previous coronary artery bypass grafting, multivessel disease (MVD), and lower FFR at inclusion. Multivariable regression analysis showed that lower deferred FFR values [FFR 0.81-0.85: hazard ratio (HR) 2.79 (95% CI [confidence interval]; 1.46-5.32), p .002], MVD [HR 1.98 (95% CI; 1.05-3.75), p .036], distal lesions [HR 2.43 (95% CI; 1.29-4.57), p .006], and lesions located in a saphenous vein graft (SVG) [HR 6.35 (95% CI; 1.81-22.28), p .004] were independent predictors for DTLF. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term rate of DTLF of initially deferred coronary lesions was 7.3%. Independent predictors for DTLF are lower deferred FFR value, the presence of MVD, distal lesions, and lesions in SVG.

Initial Imaging-Guided Strategy Versus Routine Care in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin levels often routinely undergo invasive coronary angiography (ICA), but many do not have obstructive coronary artery disease. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) or computed tomographic angiography (CTA) may serve as a safe gatekeeper for ICA. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial (NCT01559467) in 207 patients (age 64 years; 62% male patients) with acute chest pain, elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels (>14 ng/l), and inconclusive electrocardiogram compared a CMR- or CTA-first strategy with a control strategy of routine clinical care. Follow-up ICA was recommended when initial CMR or CTA suggested myocardial ischemia, infarction, or obstructive coronary artery disease (≥70% stenosis). Primary efficacy and secondary safety endpoints were referral to ICA during hospitalization and 1-year outcomes (major adverse cardiac events and complications), respectively. RESULTS: The CMR- and CTA-first strategies reduced ICA compared with routine clinical care (87% [p = 0.001], 66% [p < 0.001], and 100%, respectively), with similar outcome (hazard ratio: CMR vs. routine, 0.78 [95% confidence interval: 0.37 to 1.61]; CTA vs. routine, 0.66 [95% confidence interval: 0.31 to 1.42]; and CMR vs. CTA, 1.19 [95% confidence interval: 0.53 to 2.66]). Obstructive coronary artery disease after ICA was found in 61% of patients in the routine clinical care arm, in 69% in the CMR-first arm (p = 0.308 vs. routine), and in 85% in the CTA-first arm (p = 0.006 vs. routine). In the non-CMR and non-CTA arms, follow-up CMR and CTA were performed in 67% and 13% of patients and led to a new diagnosis in 33% and 3%, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A novel strategy of implementing CMR or CTA first in the diagnostic process in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is a safe gatekeeper for ICA.

Prophylaxis in High-Risk Patients With eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2: Get the Balance Right.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical guidelines recommend prophylactic intravenous fluids for patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m to prevent adverse postcontrast outcomes. These patients represent a small minority of the population receiving intravascular iodinated contrast material, and data are not readily available. The current study aim is to gain insight into positive and negative effects of prophylaxis by comparing postcontrast outcomes in high-risk patients who did and did not receive prophylaxis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational data were gathered over 4 years. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years or older, eGFR less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m, and elective intravascular iodinated contrast administration. Exclusion criteria were dialysis and nonstandard periprocedural prophylaxis. Primary outcome was postcontrast acute kidney injury (>25% or >44 µmol/L serum creatinine increase within 2-5 days). Secondary outcomes were change in eGFR, 5 mL/min/1.73 m or greater eGFR decline, dialysis, and mortality at 1 month postcontrast including primary cause, as well as complications of prophylaxis. Results were stratified by contrast procedure type and corrected for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of all 55,474 elective procedures with intravascular contrast administration, 362 patients met the inclusion criteria: 281 (78%) received standard 0.9% NaCl prophylaxis and 81 (22%) received no prophylaxis. Prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis adjusted odds ratios were nonsignificant and less than 1 for postcontrast renal outcomes (postcontrast acute kidney injury, eGFR decline, dialysis), indicating a trend toward a protective effect of prophylaxis. For mortality, adjusted odds ratios were nonsignificant and greater than 1, indicating a trend toward higher mortality risk after prophylaxis. Of the primary causes of death analyzed in prophylaxis patients, 24% (5/21) were related to prophylaxis. Among 281 prophylaxis patients, 18 (6.4%) complications of prophylaxis occurred: 15 heart failures and 3 arrhythmias. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, no standard recommendation with regard to giving or withholding prophylaxis can be given. Prophylactic fluids may confer some protection against postcontrast renal adverse events but may also contribute toward increased risk of short-term death. In this setting, benefits and risks of prophylaxis must be carefully weighed and cardiac parameters assessed for each individual patient.