Long-Term Prognostic Value of Infarct Transmurality Determined by Contrast-Enhanced Cardiac Magnetic Resonance after ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

The long-term prognostic significance of maximal infarct transmurality evaluated by contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (CE-CMR) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients has yet to be determined. This study aimed to see if maximal infarct transmurality has any additional long-term prognostic value over other CE-CMR predictors in STEMI patients, such as microvascular obstruction (MVO) and intramyocardial hemorrhage (IMH). The study included 112 consecutive patients who underwent CE-CMR after STEMI to assess established parameters of myocardial injury as well as the maximal infarct transmurality. The primary clinical endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which included all-cause death, non-fatal reinfarction, and new heart failure hospitalization. The MACE occurred in 10 patients over a median follow-up of 7.9 years (IQR, 5.8 to 9.2 years) (2 deaths, 3 nonfatal MI, and 5 heart failure hospitalization). Patients with MACE had significantly higher rates of transmural extent of infarction, infarct size >5.4 percent, MVO, and IMH compared to patients without MACE. In stepwise multivariable Cox regression analysis, the transmural extent of infarction defined as 75 percent or more of infarct transmurality was an independent predictor of the MACE after correction for MVO and IMH (hazard ratio 8.7, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] 1.1-71; p=0.043). In revascularized STEMI patients, post-infarction CE-CMR-based maximal infarct transmurality is an independent long-term prognosticator. Adding maximal infarct transmurality to CE-CMR parameters like MVO and IMH could thus identify patients at high risk of long-term adverse outcomes in STEMI.

Clinical Value of Single-Projection Angiography-Derived FFR in Noninfarct-Related Artery.

BACKGROUND: The Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (µFR) is an emerging technique that requires only 1 projection of coronary angiography with similar accuracy to quantitative flow ratio (QFR). However, it has not been validated for the evaluation of noninfarct-related artery (non-IRA) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) settings. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of µFR and the safety of deferring non-IRA lesions with µFR >0.80 in the setting of AMI. METHODS: µFR and QFR were analyzed for non-IRA lesions of patients with AMI enrolled in the FRAME-AMI trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non-Infarction Related Artery Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction), consisting of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention groups. The diagnostic accuracy of µFR was compared with QFR and FFR. Patients were classified by the non-IRA µFR value of 0.80 as a cutoff value. The primary outcome was a vessel-oriented composite outcome, a composite of cardiac death, non-IRA-related myocardial infarction, and non-IRA-related repeat revascularization. RESULTS: µFR and QFR analyses were feasible in 443 patients (552 lesions). µFR showed acceptable correlation with FFR (R=0.777; P<0.001), comparable C-index with QFR to predict FFR ≤0.80 (µFR versus QFR: 0.926 versus 0.961, P=0.070), and shorter total analysis time (mean, 32.7 versus 186.9 s; P<0.001). Non-IRA with µFR >0.80 and deferred percutaneous coronary intervention had a significantly lower risk of vessel-oriented composite outcome than non-IRA with performed percutaneous coronary intervention (3.4% versus 10.5%; hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.14-0.99]; P=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multivessel AMI, µFR of non-IRA showed acceptable diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of QFR to predict FFR ≤0.80. Deferred non-IRA with µFR >0.80 showed a lower risk of vessel-oriented composite outcome than revascularized non-IRA. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.

Seven-year follow-up of endovascular treatment of iatrogenic brachioradial artery injury complicating percutaneous coronary intervention: a case report.

The radial artery has been used increasingly for percutaneous coronary intervention because of its safety and feasible access route. Nevertheless, transradial complications are possible because of the variation in radial artery anatomy. We experienced a case of the brachioradial artery injury secondary to catheterization, presenting as hypovolemic shock. A 76-year-old woman presented at our emergency department complaining of effort-induced angina. Coronary angiography via the right radial artery showed critical stenosis in the middle of the left anterior descending coronary artery. After wiring into this vessel, balloon angioplasty using a 6-Fr Judkin left guiding catheter was performed with the deployment of the zotarolimus-eluting stent. There was difficulty in negotiating the guidewire and balloons in that resistance was experienced while passing the catheter in the upper arm. Therefore, retrograde radial arteriography was performed to determine any injury to radial artery. This showed contrast extravasation in the brachioradial artery. Initially, manual compression was tried. However, 2 hours later, the patient developed cold sweating and went into a stupor. Laboratory findings showed a decline in hemoglobin, leading to suspicion of hemorrhagic shock. We applied over 30 minutes of balloon inflation, but this was ineffective. While surgical repair was not available, a 6.0 × 50 mm Viabahn stent was placed over the axillary artery. Subsequent angiography showed no further leakage or occlusion of the brachioradial artery. The postprocedural period was uneventful, and the patient was discharged with dual antiplatelet agents. At a 7-year clinical follow-up, the patient was free from limb ischemia symptoms.

Clinical Outcome after Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: XIENCE Asia Small Vessel Study.

There are limited data on outcomes after implantation of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in East Asian patients with small vessel coronary lesions. A total of 1,600 patients treated with XIENCE EES (Abbott Vascular, CA, USA) were divided into the small vessel group treated with one ≤2.5 mm stent (n=119) and the non-small vessel group treated with one ≥2.75 mm stent (n=933). The primary end point was a patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and any repeat revascularization at 12 months. The key secondary end point was a device-oriented composite outcome (DOCO), a composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel MI, and target lesion revascularization at 12 months. The small vessel group was more often female, hypertensive, less likely to present with ST-elevation MI, and more often treated for the left circumflex artery, whereas the non-small vessel group more often had type B2/C lesions, underwent intravascular ultrasound, and received unfractionated heparin. In the propensity matched cohort, the mean stent diameter was 2.5±0.0 mm and 3.1±0.4 mm in the small and non-small vessel groups, respectively. Propensity-adjusted POCO at 12 months was 6.0% in the small vessel group and 4.3% in the non-small vessel group (p=0.558). There was no significant difference in DOCO at 12 months (small vessel group: 4.3% and non-small vessel group: 1.7%, p=0.270). Outcomes of XIENCE EES for small vessel disease were comparable to those for non-small vessel disease at 12-month clinical follow-up in real-world Korean patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Treatment for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Prespecified Analysis of the FRAME-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Complete revascularization by non-infarct-related artery (IRA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction is standard practice to improve patient prognosis. However, it is unclear whether a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided or angiography-guided treatment strategy for non-IRA PCI would be more cost-effective. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prespecified cost-effectiveness analysis of the FRAME-AMI randomized clinical trial, patients were randomly allocated to either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions between August 19, 2016, and December 24, 2020. Patients were aged 19 years or older, had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI and underwent successful primary or urgent PCI, and had at least 1 non-IRA lesion (diameter stenosis >50% in a major epicardial coronary artery or major side branch with a vessel diameter of ≥2.0 mm). Data analysis was performed on August 27, 2023. Intervention: Fractional flow reserve-guided vs angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The model simulated death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Future medical costs and benefits were discounted by 4.5% per year. The main outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of FFR-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. State-transition Markov models were applied to the Korean, US, and European health care systems using medical cost (presented in US dollars), utilities data, and transition probabilities from meta-analysis of previous trials. Results: The FRAME-AMI trial randomized 562 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (11.4) years. Most patients were men (474 [84.3%]). Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI increased QALYs by 0.06 compared with angiography-guided PCI. The total cumulative cost per patient was estimated as $1208 less for FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI. The ICER was -$19 484 and the INB was $3378, indicating that FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed consistent results and the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness in FFR-guided PCI was 97%. When transition probabilities from the pairwise meta-analysis of the FLOWER-MI and FRAME-AMI trials were used, FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI in the Korean, US, and European health care systems, with an INB of $3910, $8557, and $2210, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness with FFR-guided PCI was 85%, 82%, and 31% for the Korean, US, and European health care systems, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that FFR-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions saved medical costs and increased quality of life better than angiography-guided PCI for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI should be considered in determining the treatment strategy for non-IRA stenoses in these patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02715518.

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.

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with preserved ejection fraction undergoing permanent cardiac pacemaker placement.

BACKGROUND: Chronic right-ventricular (RV) pacing can worsen heart failure in patients with a low ejection fraction (EF), but little is known about pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in patients with preserved EF. We aimed to investigate risk factors of PICM in these patients during long-term follow-up. METHODS: The prospective registry at Chosun University Hospital, South Korea, included de novo patients with preserved EF undergoing transvenous permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation for atrioventricular blockage from 2017 to 2021. Patients with EF ≥ 50% and expected ventricular pacing ≥ 40% were included. Composite outcomes were cardiac death (pump failure), hospitalization because of heart failure, PICM, and biventricular pacing (BVP) upgrade. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients (69 men, 76.3 ± 10.4 years) were included. During three years of follow-up, one patient died, 14 were hospitalized, 16 suffered PICM, and two underwent BVP upgrade. PICM were associated with reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS), prolonged paced QRS duration (pQRSd) and diastolic variables (E/e', LAVI). Cox regression analysis identified pQRSd (hazard ratio [HR], 1.111; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.011-1.222; P = 0.03) and reduced GLS (HR, 1.569; 95% CI, 1.163-2.118; P = 0.003) as independent predictors of PICM. GLS showed high predictive accuracy for PICM, with an area under the curve of 0.84 (95% CI 0.779-0.894; P < 0.001) [GLS -12.0, 62.5% sensitivity, and 86.1% specificity]. CONCLUSION: RV pacing increased the risk of PICM in patients with preserved EF. Reduced GLS and prolonged pQRSd could help identify individuals at high risk of PICM even with preserved EF.

QFR Assessment and Prognosis After Nonculprit PCI in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization using either angiography-guided or fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy can improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, there is concern that angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may result in un-necessary PCI of the non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA), and its long-term prognosis is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes after non-IRA PCI according to the quantitative flow ratio (QFR). METHODS: We performed post hoc QFR analysis of non-IRA lesions of AMI patients enrolled in the FRAME-AMI (FFR Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of AMI With Multivessel Disease) trial, which randomly allocated 562 patients into either FFR-guided PCI (FFR ≤0.80) or angiography-guided PCI (diameter stenosis >50%) for non-IRA lesions. Patients were classified by non-IRA QFR values into the QFR ≤0.80 and QFR >0.80 groups. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 443 patients (552 lesions) were eligible for QFR analysis. Of 209 patients in the angiography-guided PCI group, 30.0% (n = 60) underwent non-IRA PCI despite having QFR >0.80 in the non-IRA. Conversely, only 2.7% (n = 4) among 209 patients in the FFR-guided PCI group had QFR >0.80 in the non-IRA. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the rate of MACEs was significantly higher among patients with non-IRA PCI despite QFR >0.80 than in patients with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions (12.9% vs 3.1%; HR: 4.13; 95% CI: 1.10-15.57; P = 0.036). Non-IRA PCI despite QFR >0.80 was associated with a higher risk of non-IRA MACEs than patients with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions (12.9% vs 2.1%; HR: 5.44; 95% CI: 1.13-26.19; P = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: In AMI patients with multivessel disease, 30.0% of angiography-guided PCI resulted in un-necessary PCI for the non-IRA with QFR >0.80, which was significantly associated with an increased risk of MACEs than in those with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions. (FFR Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of AMI With Multivessel Disease [FRAME-AMI] ClinicalTrials.gov number; NCT02715518).

Combination Moderate-Intensity Statin and Ezetimibe Therapy for Elderly Patients With Atherosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: The routine use of high-intensity statins should be considered carefully in elderly patients because of their higher risk of intolerance or adverse events. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the impact of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy in elderly patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the RACING (RAndomized Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Lipid-lowerING With Statin Monotherapy Versus Statin/Ezetimibe Combination for High-risk Cardiovascular Diseases) trial, patients were stratified by age (≥75 years and <75 years). The primary endpoint was a 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: Among the 3,780 enrolled patients, 574 (15.2%) were aged ≥75 years. The rates of the primary endpoint were not different between the moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy group and the high-intensity statin monotherapy group among patients aged ≥75 years (10.6% vs 12.3%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.54-1.42; P = 0.581) and those <75 years (8.8% vs 9.4%; HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.74-1.18; P = 0.570) (P for interaction = 0.797). Moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy was associated with lower rates of intolerance-related drug discontinuation or dose reduction among patients aged ≥75 years (2.3% vs 7.2%; P = 0.010) and those <75 years (5.2% vs 8.4%; P < 0.001) (P for interaction = 0.159). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy showed similar cardiovascular benefits to those of high-intensity statin monotherapy with lower intolerance-related drug discontinuation or dose reduction in elderly patients with ASCVD having a higher risk of intolerance, nonadherence, and discontinuation with high-intensity statin therapy. (RAndomized Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Lipid-lowerING With Statin Monotherapy Versus Statin/Ezetimibe Combination for High-risk Cardiovascular Diseases [RACING Trial]; NCT03044665).

Initial Experience with Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients with Atrioventricular Block and Impaired LV Function.

Chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing can exacerbate heart failure in patients with a low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing technique; however, information remains limited on its use among patients with a low EF. This study investigated the safety and short-term clinical outcomes of LBBAP among patients with impaired left ventricular (LV) function. This retrospective analysis of pacemakers at Chosun University Hospital, South Korea, included all patients with impaired LV function (EF<50%) who underwent pacemaker implantation for atrioventricular blockage from 2019-2022. Clinical characteristics, 12-lead electrocardiography findings, echocardiography findings, and laboratory parameters were evaluated. Composite outcomes were defined as all-cause mortality, cardiac death, and hospitalization due to heart failure during the 6-month follow-up. Altogether 57 patients (25 men; mean age, 77.4±10.8 y; LVEF, 41.5±3.8%) were divided into LBBAP (n=16), biventricular pacing (BVP; n=16), and conventional RV pacing (RVP; n=25) groups. In the LBBAP group, the mean paced QRS duration (pQRSd) was narrower (119.5±14.7 vs. 140.2±14.3 vs. 163.2±13.9; p<0.001) and cardiac troponin I level was elevated post-pacing (1.14±1.29 vs. 0.20±0.29 vs. 0.24±0.51, p=0.001). Lead parameters were stable. One patient was hospitalized, and four died (one patient each from heart failure admission, myocardial infarction, unexplained death, and pneumonia in RVP vs. one from intracerebral hemorrhage in BVP) during the follow-up period. In conclusion, LBBAP is feasible in patients with impaired LV function without acute or significant complications and provides a remarkably narrower pQRSd with a stable pacing threshold.

Prasugrel dose de-escalation in diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prasugrel dose de-escalation therapy in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM)-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a post-hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Diseases-Comparison of Reduction of Prasugrel Dose or Polymer Technology in ACS Patients) randomized trial. The efficacy and safety of prasugrel dose de-escalation therapy (prasugrel 5 mg daily) were compared with conventional therapy (prasugrel 10 mg daily) in patients with DM. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) class ≥2 bleeding events. The secondary ischaemic outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, defined as the composite of cardiac death, non-fatal MI, ST, or ischaemic stroke. Of 2338 patients randomized, 990 had DM. The primary endpoint of NACE occurred in 38 patients (7.6%) receiving prasugrel dose de-escalation and in 53 patients (11.3%) receiving conventional therapy among patients with DM [hazard ratio (HR) 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-0.99; P = 0.049]. Prasugrel dose de-escalation as compared with conventional therapy did not increase the risk of ischaemic events (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.56-1.88; P = 0.927) but decreased BARC class ≥2 bleeding in patients with DM (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.23-0.84; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Prasugrel dose de-escalation compared with conventional therapy may reduce the risk of net clinical outcomes, mostly driven by a reduction in bleeding without an increase in ischaemic events in patients with DM. Trial Registration: HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS, NCT02193971, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02193971.

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.

Nitrates vs. Other Types of Vasodilators and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Vasospastic Angina: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Although vasodilators are widely used in patients with vasospastic angina (VA), few studies have compared the long-term prognostic effects of different types of vasodilators. We investigated the long-term effects of vasodilators on clinical outcomes in VA patients according to the type of vasodilator used. Study data were obtained from a prospective multicenter registry that included patients who had symptoms suggestive of VA. Patients were classified into two groups according to use of nitrates (n = 239) or other vasodilators (n = 809) at discharge. The composite clinical events rate, including acute coronary syndrome (ACS), cardiac death, new-onset arrhythmia (including ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation), and atrioventricular block, was significantly higher in the nitrates group (5.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.026) during one year of follow-up. Specifically, the prevalence of ACS was significantly more frequent in the nitrates group (4.3% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.024). After propensity score matching, the adverse effects of nitrates remained. In addition, the use of nitrates at discharge was independently associated with a 2.69-fold increased risk of ACS in VA patients. In conclusion, using nitrates as a vasodilator at discharge can increase the adverse clinical outcomes in VA patients at one year of follow-up. Clinicians need to be aware of the prognostic value and consider prescribing other vasodilators.

Prognostic Impact of Chronic Vasodilator Therapy in Patients With Vasospastic Angina.

Background Chronic vasodilator therapy with long-acting nitrate is frequently used to treat vasospastic angina. However, the clinical benefits of this approach are controversial. We investigated the prognostic impact of vasodilator therapy in patients with vasospastic angina from the multicenter, prospective VA-KOREA (Vasospastic Angina in KOREA) registry. Methods and Results We analyzed data from 1895 patients with positive intracoronary ergonovine provocation test results. The patients were divided into 4 groups: no vasodilator (n=359), nonnitrate vasodilator (n=1187), conventional nitrate (n=209), and a combination of conventional nitrate and other vasodilators (n=140). The primary end point was a composite of cardiac death, acute coronary syndrome, and new-onset arrhythmia at 2 years. Secondary end points were the individual components of the primary end point, all-cause death, and rehospitalization due to recurrent angina. The groups did not differ in terms of the risk of the primary end point. However, the acute coronary syndrome risk was significantly higher in the conventional nitrate (hazard ratio [HR], 2.49; 95% CI, 1.01-6.14; P=0.047) and combination groups (HR, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.15-9.75, P=0.027) compared with the no-vasodilator group, as assessed using the inverse probability of treatment weights. Subgroup analyses revealed prominent adverse effects of nitrate in patients with an intermediate positive ergonovine provocation test result and in those with low Japanese Coronary Spasm Association scores. Conclusions Long-acting nitrate-based chronic vasodilator therapy was associated with an increased 2-year risk of acute coronary syndrome in patients with vasospastic angina, especially in low-risk patients.