Meta-Analysis Comparing Complete or Culprit Only Revascularization in Patients With Multivessel Disease Presenting With Cardiogenic Shock.

The optimal strategy for patients with an acute myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unknown. We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials and observational studies that reported adjusted effect measures to evaluate the association of MV-PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention), compared with culprit only (C)-PCI, with cardiovascular events in patients admitted for CS and MV disease. We identified 12 studies (n = 1 randomized controlled trials, n = 11 observational) that included 7,417 patients (n = 1,809 treated with MV-PCI and n = 5,608 with C-PCI). When compared with C-PCI, MV-PCI was not associated with an increased risk of short-term death (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87 to 1.48, p = 0.35 and adjusted OR [ORadj] 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.43, p = 1.00). In-hospital and/or short-term mortality tended to be higher with MV-PCI, when compared with C-PCI, for CS patients needing dialysis (ß 0.12, 95% CI from 0.049 to 0.198; p= 0.001), whereas MV-PCI was associated with lower in-hospital and/or short-term mortality in patients with an anterior MI (ß -0.022, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; p <0.001). MV-PCI strategy was associated with a more frequent need for dialysis or contrast-induced nephropathy after revascularization (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.75, p = 0.02). In conclusion, MV-PCI seems not to increase risk of death during short- or long-term follow-up when compared with C-PCI in patients admitted for MV coronary artery disease and MI complicated by CS. Furthermore, it appears a more favorable strategy in patients with anterior MI, whereas the increased risk for AKI and its negative prognostic impact should be considered in decision-making process. Further studies are needed to confirm our hypothesis on in these subpopulations of CS patients.

Optical coherence tomography compared with fractional flow reserve guided approach in acute coronary syndromes: A propensity matched analysis.

AIM: To compare in patients with ACS (acute coronary syndromes) a PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention) approach based on FFR (fractional flow reserve) vs. one based on OCT (optical coherence tomography). METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients admitted for ACS and treated with a PCI approach based on OCT or on FFR (recruited in two different studies) were compared and matched with propensity score analysis. Target Lesion revascularization (TLR) was the primary end point, while major adverse cardiovascular events [MACEs defined as the composite of death from cardiac causes, non-fatal MI, clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR), or re-hospitalization due to unstable angina] were the secondary ones. Sub-group analysis was performed for patients with FFR/OCT performed on culprit lesions and not. 285 patients were enrolled in the OCT-guided group and 335 in the FFR-guided group, 197 for each being selected after propensity score. After 25months (range: 7-39months), OCT-guided group were exposed to lower incidence of TLR (4.1% vs. 14.2% p<0.01) compared with FFR-guided group without impact on MACEs (14.2% vs. 14.2%, p=1) or all-cause death (3.6% vs. 1.1%, p=0.34). At Kaplan-Maier curve analysis for MACEs OCT-guided and FFR-guided groups showed similar outcomes (HR 1.19, CI 0.65-2.2, p=0.54). Subgroup analysis on culprit and not culprit vessel demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: An OCT based approach in ACS patients offers a reduction in TLR when compared to a PCI-FFR driven. These findings should be confirmed in randomized controlled trial.