Timing of invasive strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: risk and reward?

This commentary refers to ‘Timing of invasive strategy in elevation acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials’, by T.A. Kite et al., https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac213 and the discussion piece ‘Timing of early invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome’, by A.I. Aladin et al., https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac466

Collateral donor artery physiology and the influence of a chronic total occlusion on fractional flow reserve

Background— The presence of a concomitant chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO) and a large collateral contribution might alter the fractional flow reserve (FFR) of an interrogated vessel, rendering the FFR unreliable at predicting ischemia should the CTO vessel be revascularized and potentially affecting the decision on optimal revascularization strategy. We tested the hypothesis that donor vessel FFR would significantly change after percutaneous coronary intervention of a concomitant CTO. Methods and Results— In consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of a CTO, coronary pressure and flow velocity were measured at baseline and hyperemia in proximal and distal segments of both nontarget vessels, before and after percutaneous coronary intervention. Hemodynamics including FFR, absolute coronary flow, and the coronary flow velocity–pressure gradient relation were calculated. After successful percutaneous coronary intervention in 34 of 46 patients, FFR in the predominant donor vessel increased from 0.782 to 0.810 (difference, 0.028 [0.012 to 0.044]; P=0.001). Mean decrease in baseline donor vessel absolute flow adjusted for rate pressure product: 177.5 to 139.9 mL/min (difference −37.6 [−62.6 to −12.6]; P=0.005), mean decrease in hyperemic flow: 306.5 to 272.9 mL/min (difference, −33.5 [−58.7 to −8.3]; P=0.011). Change in predominant donor vessel FFR correlated with angiographic (%) diameter stenosis severity (r=0.44; P=0.009) and was strongly related to stenosis severity measured by the coronary flow velocity–pressure gradient relation (r=0.69; P<0.001). Conclusions— Recanalization of a CTO results in a modest increase in the FFR of the predominant collateral donor vessel associated with a reduction in coronary flow. A larger increase in FFR is associated with greater coronary stenosis severity

Timing of invasive strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS: The optimal timing of an invasive strategy (IS) in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is controversial. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term follow-up data have yet to be included in a contemporary meta-analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review of RCTs that compared an early IS vs. delayed IS for NSTE-ACS was conducted by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A meta-analysis was performed by pooling relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), recurrent ischaemia, admission for heart failure (HF), repeat re-vascularization, major bleeding, stroke, and length of hospital stay. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021246131). Seventeen RCTs with outcome data from 10 209 patients were included. No significant differences in risk for all-cause mortality [RR: 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-1.04], MI (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.63-1.16), admission for HF (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.43-1.03), repeat re-vascularization (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.88-1.23), major bleeding (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.68-1.09), or stroke (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.59-1.54) were observed. Recurrent ischaemia (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.40-0.81) and length of stay (median difference: -22 h, 95% CI: -36.7 to -7.5 h) were reduced with an early IS. CONCLUSION: In all-comers with NSTE-ACS, an early IS does not reduce all-cause mortality, MI, admission for HF, repeat re-vascularization, or increase major bleeding or stroke when compared with a delayed IS. Risk of recurrent ischaemia and length of stay are significantly reduced with an early IS

Very early invasive strategy in higher risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RAPID NSTEMI trial

Objective To investigate whether a very early invasive strategy (IS)±revascularisation improves clinical outcomes compared with standard care IS in higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Methods Multicentre, randomised, controlled, pragmatic strategy trial of higher risk patients with NSTE-ACS, defined by Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events 2.0 score of ≥118, or ≥90 with at least one additional high-risk feature. Participants were randomly assigned to very early IS±revascularisation (<90 min from randomisation) or standard care IS±revascularisation (<72 hours). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, new myocardial infarction or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months. Results The trial was discontinued early by the funder due to slow recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic. 425 patients were randomised, of whom 413 underwent an IS: 204 to very early IS (median time from randomisation: 1.5 hours (IQR: 0.9–2.0)) and 209 to standard care IS (median: 44.0 hours (IQR: 22.9–72.6)). At 12 months, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the early IS (5.9%) and standard IS (6.7%) groups (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.09; p=0.86). The incidence of stroke and major bleeding was similar. The length of hospital stay was reduced with a very early IS (3.9 days (SD 6.5) vs 6.3 days (SD 7.6), p<0.01). Conclusions A strategy of very early IS did not improve clinical outcomes compared with a standard care IS in higher risk patients with NSTE-ACS. However, the primary outcome rate was low and the trial was underpowered to detect such a difference

Very early invasive angiography versus standard of care in higher-risk non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: study protocol for the prospective multicentre randomised controlled RAPID N-STEMI trial

Background: There are a paucity of randomised data on the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in higher-risk patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (N-STEMI). International guideline recommendations for early ICA are primarily based on retrospective subgroup analyses of neutral trials. Aims: The RAPID N-STEMI trial aims to determine whether very early percutaneous revascularisation improves clinical outcomes as compared with a standard of care strategy in higher-risk N-STEMI patients. Methods and analysis: RAPID N-STEMI is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised-controlled, pragmatic strategy trial. Higher-risk N-STEMI patients, as defined by Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events 2.0 score ≥118, or &gt;90 with at least one additional high-risk feature, were randomised to either: very early ICA±revascularisation or standard of care timing of ICA±revascularisation. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with at least one of the following events (all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction and hospital admission for heart failure) at 12 months. Key secondary outcomes include major bleeding and stroke. A hypothesis generating cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) substudy will provide mechanistic data on infarct size, myocardial salvage and residual ischaemia post percutaneous coronary intervention. On 7 April 2021, the sponsor discontinued enrolment due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and lower than expected event rates. 425 patients were enrolled, and 61 patients underwent CMR. Ethics and dissemination: The trial has been reviewed and approved by the East of England Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (18/EE/0222). The study results will be submitted for publication within 6 months of completion. Trial registration number: NCT03707314; Pre-results

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Medical Therapy for Chronic Total Occlusion of Coronary Arteries:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic total occlusion (CTO) of the coronary arteries is a significant clinical problem and has traditionally been treated by medical therapy or coronary artery bypass grafting. Recent studies have examined percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as an alternative option. RECENT FINDINGS: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared medical therapy to PCI for treating CTOs. PubMed and Embase were searched from their inception to March 2019 for studies that compared medical therapy and PCI for clinical outcomes in patients with CTOs. Quality of the included studies was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The results were pooled by DerSimonian and Laird random- or fixed-effect models as appropriate. Heterogeneity between studies and publication bias was evaluated by I2 index and Egger's regression, respectively. Of the 703 entries screened, 17 studies were included in the final analysis. This comprised 11,493 participants. Compared to PCI, medical therapy including randomized and observational studies was significantly associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.99, 95% CI 1.38-2.86), cardiac mortality (RR 2.36 (1.97-2.84)), and major adverse cardiac event (RR 1.25 (1.03-1.51)). However, no difference in the rate of myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization procedures was observed between the two groups. Univariate meta-regression demonstrated multiple covariates as independent moderating factors for myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization but not cardiac death and all-cause mortality. However, when only randomized studies were included, there was no difference in overall mortality or cardiac death. In CTO, when considering randomized and observational studies, medical therapy might be associated with a higher risk of mortality and myocardial infarction compared to PCI treatment

Percutaneous revascularization for ischemic left ventricular dysfunction: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently undertaken in patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The REVIVED (Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction)-BCIS2 (British Cardiovascular Society-2) trial concluded that PCI did not reduce the incidence of all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization; however, patients assigned to PCI reported better initial health-related quality of life than those assigned to optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of PCI+OMT compared with OMT alone. METHODS: REVIVED-BCIS2 was a prospective, multicenter UK trial, which randomized patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction to either PCI+OMT or OMT alone. Health care resource use (including planned and unplanned revascularizations, medication, device implantation, and heart failure hospitalizations) and health outcomes data (EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire) on each patient were collected at baseline and up to 8 years post-randomization. Resource use was costed using publicly available national unit costs. Within the trial, mean total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the perspective of the UK health system. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using estimated mean costs and QALYs in both groups. Regression analysis was used to adjust for clinically relevant predictors. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2020, 700 patients were recruited (mean age: PCI+OMT=70 years, OMT=68 years; male (%): PCI+OMT=87, OMT=88); median follow-up was 3.4 years. Over all follow-ups, patients undergoing PCI yielded similar health benefits at higher costs compared with OMT alone (PCI+OMT: 4.14 QALYs, £22 352; OMT alone: 4.16 QALYs, £15 569; difference: −0.015, £6782). For both groups, most health resource consumption occurred in the first 2 years post-randomization. Probabilistic results showed that the probability of PCI being cost-effective was 0. CONCLUSIONS: A minimal difference in total QALYs was identified between arms, and PCI+OMT was not cost-effective compared with OMT, given its additional cost. A strategy of routine PCI to treat ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction does not seem to be a justifiable use of health care resources in the United Kingdom

Arrhythmia and death following percutaneous revascularization in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction: Prespecified analyses from the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial

BACKGROUND: Ventricular arrhythmia is an important cause of mortality in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Revascularization with coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous coronary intervention is often recommended for these patients before implantation of a cardiac defibrillator because it is assumed that this may reduce the incidence of fatal and potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias, although this premise has not been evaluated in a randomized trial to date. METHODS: Patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction, extensive coronary disease, and viable myocardium were randomly assigned to receive either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical and device therapy (OMT) or OMT alone. The composite primary outcome was all-cause death or aborted sudden death (defined as an appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy or a resuscitated cardiac arrest) at a minimum of 24 months, analyzed as time to first event on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death or aborted sudden death, appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy or sustained ventricular arrhythmia, and number of appropriate ICD therapies. RESULTS: Between August 28, 2013, and March 19, 2020, 700 patients were enrolled across 40 centers in the United Kingdom. A total of 347 patients were assigned to the PCI+OMT group and 353 to the OMT alone group. The mean age of participants was 69 years; 88% were male; 56% had hypertension; 41% had diabetes; and 53% had a clinical history of myocardial infarction. The median left ventricular ejection fraction was 28%; 53.1% had an implantable defibrillator inserted before randomization or during follow-up. All-cause death or aborted sudden death occurred in 144 patients (41.6%) in the PCI group and 142 patients (40.2%) in the OMT group (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.82–1.30]; P =0.80). There was no between-group difference in the occurrence of any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PCI was not associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality or aborted sudden death. In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, PCI is not beneficial solely for the purpose of reducing potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01920048