Restoration of Epicardial Blood Flow After Left Ventricular Unloading With the Impella CP Heart Pump in a Patient With STEMI Treated With Surgical Revascularization.

Left main occlusion presenting as ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is an exceedingly morbid condition. This article reports a case of cardiac arrest in a patient after a treadmill stress test. Coronary angiography revealed 100% occlusion of the left main coronary artery. Left ventricular unloading with the Impella CP heart pump (ABIOMED/Johnson & Johnson MedTech) was used, after which epicardial blood flow was restored without angioplasty. The patient underwent surgical revascularization. Despite a prolonged revascularization time, there was no evidence of severe myocardial injury postoperatively.

N terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide level and benefits of chronic total occlusion revascularization.

BACKGROUND: The management of revascularization of chronic total occlusions (CTOs) remains controversial. Whether specific patients gain survival benefit from CTO revascularization remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether (i) patients with CTO have higher N terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT pro-BNP) levels than patients without CTO, (ii) in patients with CTO, NT pro-BNP levels predict adverse events, and (iii) those with elevated levels benefit from revascularization. METHODS: In 392 patients with stable, significant coronary artery disease (CAD) and CTO undergoing coronary angiography, rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and a composite (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and heart failure hospitalizations) were investigated. Unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional and Fine and Gray sub-distribution hazard models were performed to determine the association between NT pro-BNP levels and incident event rates in patients with CTO. RESULTS: NT pro-BNP levels were higher in patients with, compared to those without CTO (median 230.0 vs. 177.7 pg/mL, p ≤0.001). Every doubling of NT pro-BNP level in patients with CTO was associated with a > 25% higher rate of adverse events. 111 (28.5%) patients underwent CTO revascularization. In patients with elevated NT pro-BNP levels (> 125 pg/mL), those who underwent CTO revascularization had substantially lower adverse event rates compared to patients without CTO revascularization (adjusted cardiovascular death hazard ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval (0.09-0.88). However, in patients with low NT pro-BNP levels (≤ 125 pg/mL), event rates were similar in those with and without CTO revascularization. CONCLUSION: NT pro-BNP levels can help identify individuals who may benefit from CTO revascularization.

Underrepresentation of Women in Revascularization Trials.

This Viewpoint discusses the unequal representation of women in coronary revascularization trials in the US, its negative effects on the cardiovascular health of both sexes, and potential mechanisms to ensure appropriate representation of women moving forward.

Complete vs Culprit-Only Revascularization in Older Patients With Myocardial Infarction and High Bleeding Risk: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) have a poor prognosis, and it is not known if they may benefit from complete revascularization after myocardial infarction (MI). Objective: To investigate the benefit of physiology-guided complete revascularization vs a culprit-only strategy in patients with HBR, MI, and multivessel disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prespecified analysis of the Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients With Multivessel Disease (FIRE) randomized clinical trial data. FIRE was an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter trial. Patients 75 years or older with MI and multivessel disease were enrolled at 34 European centers from July 2019 through October 2021. Physiology treatment was performed either by angiography- or wire-based assessment. Patients were divided into HBR or non-HBR categories in accordance with the Academic Research Consortium HBR document. Interventions: Patients were randomized to either physiology-guided complete revascularization or culprit-only strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome comprised a composite of death, MI, stroke, or revascularization at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular death or MI and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 3 to 5. Results: Among 1445 patients (mean [SD] age, 81 [5] years; 917 male [63%]), 1025 (71%) met HBR criteria. Patients with HBR were at higher risk for the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.47-2.76), cardiovascular death or MI (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.26-2.83), and BARC types 3 to 5 (HR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.40-7.64). The primary end point was significantly reduced with physiology-guided complete revascularization as compared with culprit-only strategy in patients with HBR (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.96). No indication of interaction was noted between revascularization strategy and HBR status for primary and secondary end points. Conclusions and Relevance: HBR status is prevalent among older patients with MI, significantly increasing the likelihood of adverse events. Physiology-guided complete revascularization emerges as an effective strategy, in comparison with culprit-only revascularization, for mitigating ischemic adverse events, including cardiovascular death and MI. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03772743.

In-hospital versus after-discharge complete revascularization in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. REVIVA-ST trial.

INTRODUCTION: Complete revascularization (CR) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD), is associated with a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). However, there is uncertainty about whether nonculprit-lesion revascularization should be performed, during index hospitalization or delayed, especially regarding health care resources utilization. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of in-hospital nonculprit-lesion revascularization vs. delayed (after discharge) revascularization on the length of index hospitalization. METHODS: In this single-center study, we randomly assigned patients with STEMI and MVD who underwent successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either CR during in-hospital admission or a delayed CR after discharge. The first primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay. The second endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or ischemia-driven revascularization at 12 months (MACE). RESULTS: From January 2018 to December 2022, we enrolled 258 patients (131 allocated to CR during in-hospital admission and 127 to an after-discharge CR). We found a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay in those assigned to after-discharge CR strategy [4 days (3-5) versus 7 days (5-9); p = 0.001]. At 12-month of follow-up, no differences were found in the occurrence of MACE, 7 (5.34%) patients in in-hospital CR and 4 (3.15%) in after-discharge CR strategy; (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 2.02; p = 0.397). CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI patients with MVD, an after-discharge CR strategy reduces the length of index hospitalization without an increased risk of MACE after 12 months of follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04743154.

The role of gender in resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) guided coronary revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Gender-based differences in clinical outcomes of patients undergoing fractional flow reserved (FFR) guided coronary revascularization is well documented. This study aimed to compare resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) values between men and women and whether this translated into difference in clinical outcomes in patients who underwent RFR-guided coronary revascularization. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-centre study of consecutive patients who underwent RFR-guided revascularization for coronary lesions with intermediate degree of stenosis. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularization, and unstable angina requiring hospital admission at one year. RESULTS: In 373 consecutive patients (510 lesions, 26% women) there was no statistically significant difference in RFR value between men and women (0.90 ± 10 versus 0.90 ± 11, P = 0.95). There was no statistically significant difference between men and women in the primary endpoint, even after adjustment to the imbalance between the two groups [3.7% vs. 3.0%; HR 1.43, 95% CI (0.46 to 4.43), P = 0.54]; or its individual components of death (1.1% vs 0.8%, P = 0.76), MI (1.9% vs 0.8%, P = 0.38) or unplanned revascularization, including unstable angina admissions (2.6% vs 2.3%, P = 0.82). The comparable clinical outcomes were consistent across all different subgroups, including clinical presentation, diabetes status, left ventricle systolic function, kidney function, and the interrogated coronary artery. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests no significant gender-based difference in the value of RFR or 1-year clinical outcomes in patients undergoing resting physiology guided coronary revascularization.

[Preventive myocardial revascularization prior to abdominal aortic repair in patients without cardiac symptoms: long-term results]. / Profilakticheskaya revaskulyarizatsiya miokarda pered rezektsiei anevrizmy bryushnoi aorty u kardiologicheski asimptomnykh bol'nykh: otdalennye rezul'taty.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term influence of preoperative invasive coronary screening and preventive myocardial revascularization on mortality and cardiac complications after open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We present long-term outcomes after open surgery for AAA between 2011 and 2022. Patients without clinical or objective signs of coronary artery disease were included. In the 1st group, routine coronary angiography was performed before surgery. Prophylactic myocardial revascularization was performed in 12 cases. Long-term data on 45 patients were obtained. In the 2nd group, 53 patients underwent repair without invasive coronary screening, and data on 48 patients were obtained in this group. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 32 and 79 months, respectively. Kaplan-Meyer overall 48-month survival was 87.3% and 82.1%, respectively (p=0.278). In the first group, 2 patients developed angina pectoris in the same period. In the second group, we observed 2 cases of myocardial infarction and 3 cases of angina pectoris without infarction. Analysis of survival curves found no significant differences (p=0.165). CONCLUSION: In our study, invasive coronary screening and preventive myocardial revascularization in patients without clinical and objective signs of coronary artery did not improve 4-year long-term period after abdominal aortic repair. Perhaps, differences will appear after 4 years, and this requires further follow-up after coronary angiography. However, there is a tendency towards more common onsets of coronary artery disease that dictates the need for cardiac monitoring of such patients.

Physiological Assessment with iFR prior to FFR Measurement in Left Main Disease.

Despite guideline-based recommendation of the interchangeable use of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularization decision-making, iFR/FFR could demonstrate different physiological or clinical outcomes in some specific patient or lesion subsets. Therefore, we sought to investigate the impact of difference between iFR and FFR-guided revascularization decision-making on clinical outcomes in patients with left main disease (LMD). In this international multicenter registry of LMD with physiological interrogation, we identified 275 patients in whom physiological assessment was performed with both iFR/FFR. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed for both iFR/FFR to predict MACE in respective patients in whom revascularization was deferred and performed. In 153 patients of revascularization deferral, MACE occurred in 17.0% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR to predict MACE were 0.88 (specificity:0.74; sensitivity:0.65) and 0.76 (specificity:0.81; sensitivity:0.46), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher for iFR than FFR (0.74; 95%CI 0.62-0.85 vs. 0.62; 95%CI 0.48-0.75; p = 0.012). In 122 patients of coronary revascularization, MACE occurred in 13.1% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR were 0.92 (specificity:0.93; sensitivity:0.25) and 0.81 (specificity:0.047; sensitivity:1.00), respectively. The AUCs were not significantly different between iFR and FFR (0.57; 95%CI 0.40-0.73 vs. 0.46; 95%CI 0.31-0.61; p = 0.43). While neither baseline iFR nor FFR was predictive of MACE in patients in whom revascularization was performed, iFR-guided deferral seemed to be safer than FFR-guided deferral.

Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

A strategy of complete revascularization (CR) is recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). However, the optimal timing of CR remains equivocal. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate CR (ICR) with staged CR in patients with ACS and MVD. Our primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. All outcomes were assessed at 3 time points: in-hospital or at 30 days, at 6 months to 1 year, and at >1 year. Data were pooled in RevMan 5.4 using risk ratios as the effect measure. A total of 9 RCTs (7,506 patients) were included in our review. A total of 7 trials enrolled patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 1 enrolled patients with non-STEMI only, and 1 enrolled patients with all types of ACS. There was no difference between ICR and staged CR regarding all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at any time window. ICR reduced the rate of myocardial infarction and decreased the rate of repeat revascularization at 6 months and beyond. The rates of cerebrovascular events and stent thrombosis were similar between the 2 groups. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis demonstrated a lower rate of myocardial infarction and a reduction in repeat revascularization at and after 6 months with ICR strategy in patients with mainly STEMI and MVD. The 2 groups had no difference in the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Further RCTs are needed to provide more definitive conclusions and investigate CR strategies in other ACS.

Acute Coronary Syndrome Revascularization Strategies With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease.

In acute coronary syndromes (ACS), revascularization is the standard of care. However, trials comparing contemporary coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are limited. Optimal revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MV-CAD) presenting with ACS is unclear. This is a multicentered, retrospective observational study from a large hospital system in the United States. We abstracted data in patients with MV-CAD and ACS from 2018 to 2022 who underwent revascularization with PCI, CABG, or medical management (MM). We evaluated multivariate statistics comparing categorical variables and outcomes, including all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year. All logistic and Cox proportional-hazard models were balanced using inverse probability treatment weights accounting for age and gender. There were 295 patients with CABG (median age 66 years [interquartile range 59.7 to 73.1]; 73% male), 1,559 patients with PCI (median age 68.3 years [interquartile range 60 to 76.6]; 69.1% male], and 307 patients with MM (median age 70 years [60.9 to 77.1] 74% male]. Patients revascularized with PCI had greater all-cause mortality at 1 year (14.1% vs 5.1%; hazard ratio 2.4, confidence interval [1.5 to 3.8], p <0.001) and similar mortality to MM (13.4%). CABG also showed a reduced 1-year MI rate compared with PCI (1.7% vs 3.9%; hazard ratio 0.36, confidence interval 0.21 to 0.61, p ≤0.001), with a similar 1-year rate of MI to MM (3.9%). In conclusion, CABG is associated with lower mortality than are PCI and MM, and repeat ACS events at 1 year in patients with ACS and MV-CAD.

Timing of fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: Rationale and design of the OPTION-STEMI trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend complete revascularization (CR) in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). With regard to the timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA), recent randomized clinical trials have revealed that immediate CR was non-inferior to staged CR. However, the optimal timing of CR remains uncertain. The OPTION-STEMI trial compared immediate CR and in-hospital staged CR guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) for intermediate stenosis of the non-IRA. METHODS: The OPTION-STEMI is a multicenter, investigator-initiated, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority randomized clinical trial. The study included patients with at least 1 non-IRA lesion with ≥50% stenosis by visual estimation. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomized into 2 groups at a 1:1 ratio: immediate CR (i.e., PCI for the non-IRA performed during primary angioplasty) or in-hospital staged CR. In the in-hospital staged CR group, PCI for non-IRA lesions was performed on another day during the index hospitalization. Non-IRA lesions with 50%-69% stenosis by visual estimation were evaluated by FFR, whereas those with ≥70% stenosis was revascularized without FFR. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and all unplanned revascularization at 1 year after randomization. Enrolment began in December 2019 and was completed in January 2024. The follow-up for the primary endpoint will be completed in January 2025, and primary results will be available in the middle of 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The OPTION-STEMI is a multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized trial that evaluated the timing of in-hospital CR with the aid of FFR in patients with STEMI and MVD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT04626882; and URL: https://cris.nih.go.kr. Unique identifier: KCT0004457.

FFR-Guided Complete or Culprit-Only PCI in Patients with Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease remains unclear. METHODS: In this multinational, registry-based, randomized trial, we assigned patients with STEMI or very-high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI) and multivessel disease who were undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion to receive either FFR-guided complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The two key secondary outcomes were a composite of death from any cause or myocardial infarction and unplanned revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 1542 patients underwent randomization, with 764 assigned to receive FFR-guided complete revascularization and 778 assigned to receive culprit-lesion-only PCI. At a median follow-up of 4.8 years (interquartile range, 4.3 to 5.2), a primary-outcome event had occurred in 145 patients (19.0%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 159 patients (20.4%) in the culprit-lesion-only group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.17; P = 0.53). With respect to the secondary outcomes, no apparent between-group differences were observed in the composite of death from any cause or myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.44) or unplanned revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.04). There were no apparent between-group differences in safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI or very-high-risk NSTEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, FFR-guided complete revascularization was not shown to result in a lower risk of a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization than culprit-lesion-only PCI at 4.8 years. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; FULL REVASC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02862119.).

Outcomes by sex in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial.

BACKGROUND: In the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial, among participants with stable coronary artery disease, the risk of cardiac events was similar between an invasive (INV) strategy of angiography and coronary revascularisation and a conservative (CON) strategy of initial medical therapy alone. Outcomes according to participant sex were not reported. AIMS: We aimed to analyse the outcomes of ISCHEMIA by participant sex. METHODS: We evaluated 1) the association between participant sex and the likelihood of undergoing revascularisation for participants randomised to the INV arm; 2) the risk of the ISCHEMIA primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, any myocardial infarction [MI] or rehospitalisation for unstable angina, heart failure or resuscitated cardiac arrest) by participant sex; and 3) the contribution of the individual primary outcome components to the composite outcome by participant sex. RESULTS: Of 5,179 randomised participants, 1,168 (22.6%) were women. Female sex was independently associated with a lower likelihood of revascularisation when assigned to the INV arm (adjusted odds ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.99; p=0.04). The INV versus CON effect on the primary composite outcome was similar between sexes (women: hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% CI: 0.70-1.33; men: HR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.76-1.07; pinteraction=0.71). The contribution of the individual components to the composite outcome was similar between sexes except for procedural MI, which was significantly lower in women (9/151 [5.9%]) than men (67/519 [12.9%]; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA, women assigned to the INV arm were less likely to undergo revascularisation than men. The effect of an INV versus CON strategy was consistent by sex, but women had a significantly lower contribution of procedural MI to the primary outcome.