Association between the insufficient improvement of the quantitative flow ratio and worsening outcomes in ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

Background: Improved coronary physiological function after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to improve prognosis in stable ischaemic heart disease, but has not yet been explored in ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI). The study sought to determine whether an improvement in the quantitative flow ratio (QFR) could improve the prognosis of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. Methods: Patients diagnosed with STEMI who were receiving primary PCI were recruited for the study. Those with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow <2 after wiring were excluded. The ΔQFR was calculated using the following formula: ΔQFR = post-PCI QFR - pre-stent QFR. The primary endpoint was the composite event, including recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) and acute heart failure (AHF). Results: In total, 515 STEMI patients with a median follow-up of 364 days were enrolled in the study. Based on the cut-off value from the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve, the patients were divided into the following two groups: the lower ΔQFR group (≤0.25, N=332); and the normal ΔQFR group (>0.25, N=183). Patients with a lower ΔQFR had a relatively higher rate of MI/AHF (10.5% vs. 4.4%, P=0.019) and AHF (7.2% vs. 2.7%, P=0.044). A lower ΔQFR was significantly associated with a higher incidence of MI/AHF [hazard ratio (HR) =2.962, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.358-6.459, P=0.006, respectively] after adjusting for potential confounders. Pre-stent angiographic microvascular resistance [odds ratio (OR) =1.027, 95% CI: 1.022-1.033, P<0.001] and the stent-to-vessel diameter ratio <1.13 (OR =1.766, 95% CI: 1.027-3.071, P=0.04) were independent predictors of a lower ΔQFR. Conclusions: An insufficient improvement in the QFR contributes to worsening outcomes and might be a useful tool for risk stratification in STEMI.

Impact of Short-Term Heart Rate Variability in Patients with STEMI Treated by Delayed versus Immediate Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Objective: Patients with ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) have been treated with the delayed stent strategy to reduce the occurrence of postoperative no-reflow and improve the recovery of postoperative cardiac function. However, the effects of electrocardiac activity and autonomic nerve function after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) have been rarely reported. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of short-term heart rate variability (HRV) in patients with STEMI treated by immediate stent (IS) and delayed stent (DS) strategy. Methods: A total of 178 patients with STEMI were divided into 124 cases (69.66%) in the IS group and 54 cases (30.34%) in the DS group from July 2019 to September 2021. The mean heart rate, premature ventricular contraction (PVC), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVED), and HRV indexes were compared between the two groups. Results: In terms of cardiac electrical stability, the number of PVCs, the percentage of PVCs, and the number of paired PVCs in the DS group were lower than those in the IS group. In terms of HRV, high frequency (HF) and standard deviation of all NN (SDNN) intervals were higher in the patients with DS strategy than IS strategy. There were no significant differences in the LVED and LVEF between the two groups. Conclusion: Compared to the IS strategy, the DS strategy in pPCI in patients with STEMI has advantages in postoperative cardiac electrical stability and short-term cardiac autonomic nerve function, with no difference in postoperative short-term cardiac function.

Microvascular and Prognostic Effect in Lesions With Different Stent Expansion During Primary PCI for STEMI: Insights From Coronary Physiology and Intravascular Ultrasound.

Background: While coronary stent implantation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) can mechanically revascularize culprit epicardial vessels, it might also cause distal embolization. The relationship between geometrical and functional results of stent expansion during the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is unclear. Objective: We sought to determine the optimal stent expansion strategy in pPCI using novel angiography-based approaches including angiography-derived quantitative flow ratio (QFR)/microcirculatory resistance (MR) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Methods: Post-hoc analysis was performed in patients with acute STEMI and high thrombus burden from our prior multicenter, prospective cohort study (ChiCTR1800019923). Patients aged 18 years or older with STEMI were eligible. IVUS imaging, QFR, and MR were performed during pPCI, while stent expansion was quantified on IVUS images. The patients were divided into three subgroups depending on the degree of stent expansion as follows: overexpansion (>100%), optimal expansion (80%-100%), and underexpansion (<80%). The patients were followed up for 12 months after PCI. The primary endpoint included sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unexpected hospitalization or unplanned revascularization, and all-cause death. Results: A total of 87 patients were enrolled. The average stent expansion degree was 82% (in all patients), 117% (in overexpansion group), 88% (in optimal expansion), and 75% (in under-expansion). QFR, MR, and flow speed increased in all groups after stenting. The overall stent expansion did not affect the final QFR (p = 0.08) or MR (p = 0.09), but it reduced the final flow speed (-0.14 cm/s per 1%, p = 0.02). Under- and overexpansion did not affect final QFR (p = 0.17), MR (p = 0.16), and flow speed (p = 0.10). Multivariable Cox analysis showed that stent expansion was not the risk factor for MACE (hazard ratio, HR = 0.97, p = 0.13); however, stent expansion reduced the risk of MACE (HR = 0.95, p = 0.03) after excluding overexpansion patients. Overexpansion was an independent risk factor for no-reflow (HR = 1.27, p = 0.02) and MACE (HR = 1.45, p = 0.007). Subgroup analysis shows that mild underexpansion of 70%-80% was not a risk factor for MACE (HR = 1.11, p = 0.08) and no-reflow (HR = 1.4, p = 0.08); however, stent expansion <70% increased the risk of MACE (HR = 1.36, p = 0.04). Conclusions: Stent expansion does not affect final QFR and MR, but it reduces flow speed in STEMI. Appropriate stent underexpansion of 70-80% does not seem to be associated with short-term prognosis, so it may be tolerable as noninferior compared with optimal expansion. Meanwhile, overexpansion and underexpansion of <70% should be avoided due to the independent risk of MACEs and no-reflow events.

Non-stenting strategy is not inferior to stent implantation in patients with acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction and high thrombus burden and intermediate stenotic culprit lesion.

BACKGROUND: According to European Society of Cardiology (ESC) as well as American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines, primary stenting is recommended for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); however, in-stent thrombosis is a life-threatening early adverse event that could lead to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or even cardiac death. On the other hand, in-stent restenosis is a late adverse event that could result in recurrent readmission and revascularization. We compared a non-stenting (NS) strategy to a stenting (S) strategy in terms of incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) for patients with acute STEMI and high thrombus burden. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of our prior multicenter, prospective cohort study (ChiCTR1800019923) among 51 eligible patients with acute STEMI and high thrombus burden. All participants received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a deferred-stenting strategy (second procedure performed within 48-72 h after primary PCI). Either NS or S strategies were carried out among patients. Primary outcomes were follow-ups of MACEs at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Intravenous ultrasound (IVUS) and quantitative flow ratio (QFR) evaluation were performed. RESULTS: In our post hoc analysis of 51 patients (21 with NS and 30 with S), baseline clinical and interventional characteristics were well matched between the 2 groups, to the exception of culprit lesion length. Incidence of MACEs was not significantly different between the 2 strategies in-hospital (P=0.56) and in follow-ups at 1 (P=0.41), 3 (free of events), 6 (P=0.71), and 12 (P=0.68) months. Culprit lesions of NS tended to be "low-risk" [minimum lumen area (MLA) 4.27±1.02 vs. 3.80±1.32 mm2, P=0.36] and plaque burden (70.79%±6.46% vs. 76.97%±6.76%, P=0.03) when compared with culprit lesions of S in IVUS evaluation. Evaluation of QFR showed more sufficient physiological reperfusion improvement with NS than with S [two-dimensional (2D) QFR: 0.85±0.09 vs. 0.79±0.13, P=0.10 and 3D QFR: 0.86±0.08 vs. 0.78±0.15, P=0.02]. CONCLUSIONS: The NS strategy did not increase MACEs in-hospital and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The NS can be a safe option when meeting certain criteria for patients with STEMI and a high thrombus burden.

Effect of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor duration on the clinical prognosis of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with no-/slow-reflow phenomenon.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) accompanied by the no-/slow-reflow phenomenon, the maintenance duration of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) is controversial. We compare the efficacy and safety of short- and long-term GPI infusion in STEMI patients with the no-/slow-reflow phenomenon. METHODS: From June 2016 to December 2019, we continuously included patients with on-set STEMI who underwent pPCI, accompanied by the no-/slow-reflow, during interventional procedures at Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital and Zhuhai Golden Bay Hospital. The hemorrhage events, heart function, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were compared between < 24 h and ≥ 24 h GPI duration groups. The Kaplan-Meier curve was used to estimate the 1-year MACE-free survival at different GPI utility times. RESULTS: In total, 127 patients were divided into two groups based on the duration of tirofiban use (less and more than 24 h). There was no significant difference between two groups in terms of baseline characteristics, plaque condition, and coronary physiological function. The two groups showed similar in-hospital MACE (1 [1.85%] vs. 4 [5.48%], p = 0.394) and 1-year MACE-free survival (log-rank test p = 0.9085). The 1-year MACE remained consistent between the two groups in all subgroups of different risk factors of no-/slow-reflow. There was no significant difference in heart function and in-hospital hemorrhage events (3.7% vs. 1.37%, p = 0.179). CONCLUSION: In the real world, prolonging the duration of GPI may not significantly improve the clinical outcome in patients with STEMI with no-/slow-reflow.

The outcomes in STEMI patients with high thrombus burden treated by deferred versus immediate stent implantation in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: No-/slow-reflow indicates worse outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with high thrombus burden. We examined whether deferred stenting (DS) strategy reduces no-/slow-reflow or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) for patients with acute STEMI and high thrombus burden. METHODS: We performed an open-label, multi-center, prospective cohort study among eligible patients with acute STEMI and high thrombus burden who further received pPCI. All participants received PCI with DS (second procedure performed within 48-72 h) or immediate-stenting (IS) strategy. The primary outcome was the incidence of no-/slow-reflow. We evaluated MACEs and bleeding events during hospitalization and at 30- and 90-day follow-ups. RESULTS: We recruited 245 patients to this study, including 51 with DS and 194 with IS. Baseline clinical characters were comparable between the 2 strategies. Incidence of no-/slow-reflow defined by thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade was not significantly different between the 2 strategies [DS: 5 (9.8%), IS: 33 (17.0%), P=0.21]. No-/slow-reflow by TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (TMPG) was less prevalent in DS [20 (39.2%) vs. 107 (55.2%), P=0.04]. No significant differences were found in recurrence of myocardial infarction (P=0.56), cardiac death (P=0.37), all-cause mortality (P=0.37), heart failure-induced readmission (P=0.35), or bleeding (P=0.61) between the 2 strategies in-hospital, and at 30- and 90-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI patients with high thrombus burden who underwent pPCI, DS strategy reduced no-/slow-reflow of microcirculation. However, DS strategy did not reduce incidence of MACEs or bleeding.

Concomitant coronary and renal revascularization improves left ventricular hypertrophy more than coronary stenting alone in patients with ischemic heart and renal disease.

Percutaneous transluminal renal artery stenting (PTRAS) has been proved to have no more benefit than medication alone in treating atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS). Whether PTRAS could improve left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and reduce adverse events when based on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and ARAS is still unclear. A retrospective study was conducted, which explored the effect of concomitant PCI and PTRAS versus PCI alone for patients with CAD and ARAS complicated by heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). A total of 228 patients meeting inclusion criteria were divided into two groups: (1) the HFpEF-I group, with PCI and PTRAS; (2) the HFpEF-II group, with PCI alone. Both groups had a two-year follow-up. The left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and other clinical characteristics were compared between groups. During the follow-up period, a substantial decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP) was observed in the HFpEF-I group, but not in the HFpEF-II group. There was marked decrease in LVMI in both groups, but the HFpEF-I group showed a greater decrease than the HFpEF-II group. Regression analysis demonstrated that PTRAS was significantly associated with LVMI reduction and fewer adverse events after adjusting for other factors. In HFpEF patients with both CAD and ARAS, concomitant PCI and PTRAS can improve LVH and decrease the incidence of adverse events more than PCI alone. This study highlights the beneficial effect of ARAS revascularization, as a new and more aggressive revascularization strategy for such high-risk patients.

Decrease of glomerular filtration rate may be attributed to the microcirculation damage in renal artery stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The decrease of glomerular filtration rate has been theoretically supposed to be the result of low perfusion in renal artery stenosis (RAS). But the gap between artery stenosis and the glomerular filtration ability is still unclear. METHODS: Patients with selective renal artery angiogram were divided by the degree of renal artery narrowing, level of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), respectively. The different levels of eGFR, renal microcirculation markers, and RAS severity were compared with each other, to determine the relationships among them. RESULTS: A total of 215 consecutive patients were enrolled in the prospective cohort study. Concentrations of microcirculation markers had no significant difference between RAS group (RAS ≥ 50%) and no RAS group (RAS < 50%) or did not change correspondingly to RAS severity. The value of eGFR in RAS group was lower than that in the no RAS group, but it did not decline parallel to the progressive severity of RAS. The microcirculation markers presented integral difference if grouped by different eGFR level with negative tendency, especially that plasma cystatin C (cysC) and urinary microalbumin to creatinine ratio (mACR) increased with the deterioration of eGFR, with strong (r = -0.713, P < 0.001) and moderate (r = -0.580, P < 0.001) correlations. In the subgroup analysis of severe RAS (RAS ≥ 80%), the levels of plasma cysC and urinary mACR demonstrated stronger negative associations with eGFR, (r = -0.827, P < 0.001) and (r = -0.672, P < 0.001) correlations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Severity of RAS could not accurately predict the value of eGFR, whereas microcirculation impairment may substantially contribute to the glomerular filtration loss in patients with RAS.