Fractional flow reserve versus angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (FAMOUS-NSTEMI): rationale and design of a randomized controlled clinical trial

<p>Background: In patients with acute non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), coronary arteriography is usually recommended; but visual interpretation of the angiogram is subjective. We hypothesized that functional assessment of coronary stenosis severity with a pressure-sensitive guide wire (fractional flow reserve [FFR]) would have additive diagnostic, clinical, and health economic utility as compared with angiography-guided standard care.</p> <p>Methods and design: A prospective multicenter parallel-group 1:1 randomized controlled superiority trial in 350 NSTEMI patients with ≥1 coronary stenosis ≥30% severity (threshold for FFR measurement) will be conducted. Patients will be randomized immediately after coronary angiography to the FFR-guided group or angiography-guided group. All patients will then undergo FFR measurement in all vessels with a coronary stenosis ≥30% severity including culprit and nonculprit lesions. Fractional flow reserve will be disclosed to guide treatment in the FFR-guided group but not disclosed in the “angiography-guided” group. In the FFR-guided group, an FFR ≤0.80 will be an indication for revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery, as appropriate. The primary outcome is the between-group difference in the proportion of patients allocated to medical management only compared with revascularization. Secondary outcomes include the occurrence of cardiac death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or heart failure, quality of life, and health care costs. The minimum and average follow-up periods for the primary analysis are 6 and 18 months, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusions: Our developmental clinical trial will address the feasibility of FFR measurement in NSTEMI and the influence of FFR disclosure on treatment decisions and health and economic outcomes.</p&gt

Point-of-care platelet function assays demonstrate reduced responsiveness to clopidogrel, but not aspirin, in patients with Drug-Eluting Stent Thrombosis whilst on dual antiplatelet therapy

BackgroundTo test the hypothesis that point-of-care assays of platelet reactivity would demonstrate reduced response to antiplatelet therapy in patients who experienced Drug Eluting Stent (DES) ST whilst on dual antiplatelet therapy compared to matched DES controls. Whilst the aetiology of stent thrombosis (ST) is multifactorial there is increasing evidence from laboratory-based assays that hyporesponsiveness to antiplatelet therapy is a factor in some cases.MethodsFrom 3004 PCI patients, seven survivors of DES ST whilst on dual antiplatelet therapy were identified and each matched with two patients without ST. Analysis was performed using (a) short Thrombelastogram PlateletMapping™ (TEG) and (b) VerifyNow Aspirin and P2Y12 assays. TEG analysis was performed using the Area Under the Curve at 15 minutes (AUC15) as previously described.ResultsThere were no differences in responses to aspirin. There was significantly greater platelet reactivity on clopidogrel in the ST group using the Accumetrics P2Y12 assay (183 ± 51 vs. 108 ± 31, p = 0.02) and a trend towards greater reactivity using TEG AUC15 (910 ± 328 vs. 618 ± 129, p = 0.07). 57% of the ST group by TEG and 43% of the ST cases by Accumetrics PRU had results > two standard deviations above the expected mean in the control group.ConclusionThis study demonstrates reduced platelet response to clopidogrel in some patients with DES ST compared to matched controls. The availability of point-of-care assays that can detect these responses raises the possibility of prospectively identifying DES patients at risk of ST and manipulating their subsequent risk

Impact of Social Vulnerability on Diabetes-Related Cardiovascular Mortality in the United States

Background: Social vulnerability impacts the natural history of diabetes as well as cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, there are little data regarding the social vulnerability association with diabetes-related CVD mortality. Methods and Results County-level mortality data (where CVD was the underlying cause of death with diabetes among the multiple causes) extracted from the Centers for Disease Control multiple cause of death (2015-2019) and the 2018 Social Vulnerability Index databases were aggregated into quartiles based on their Social Vulnerability Index ranking from the least (first quartile) to the most vulnerable (fourth quartile). Stratified by demographic groups, the data were analyzed for overall CVD, as well as for ischemic heart disease, hypertensive disease, heart failure, and cerebrovascular disease. In the 5-year study period, 387 139 crude diabetes-related cardiovascular mortality records were identified. The age-adjusted mortality rate for CVD was higher in the fourth quartile compared with the first quartile (relative risk [RR], 1.66 [95% CI, 1.64-1.67]) with an estimated 39 328 excess deaths. Among the youngest age group (<55 years), those with the highest social vulnerability had 2 to 4 times the rate of cardiovascular mortality compared with the first quartile: ischemic heart disease (RR, 2.07 [95% CI, 1.97-2.17]; heart failure (RR, 3.03 [95% CI, 2.62-3.52]); hypertensive disease (RR, 3.79 [95% CI, 3.45-4.17]; and cerebrovascular disease (RR, 4.39 [95% CI, 3.75-5.13]). Conclusions Counties with greater social vulnerability had higher diabetes-related CVD mortality, especially among younger adults. Targeted health policies that are designed to reduce these disparities are warranted

Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and Multivessel Disease

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of patients found to have multivessel disease while undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is uncertain.   OBJECTIVES: CvLPRIT (Complete versus Lesion-only Primary PCI trial) is a U.K. open-label randomized study comparing complete revascularization at index admission with treatment of the infarct-related artery (IRA) only.   METHODS: After they provided verbal assent and underwent coronary angiography, 296 patients in 7 U.K. centers were randomized through an interactive voice-response program to either in-hospital complete revascularization (n = 150) or IRA-only revascularization (n = 146). Complete revascularization was performed either at the time of P-PCI or before hospital discharge. Randomization was stratified by infarct location (anterior/nonanterior) and symptom onset (≤3 h or >3 h). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, and ischemia-driven revascularization within 12 months.   RESULTS: Patient groups were well matched for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.0% of the complete revascularization group versus 21.2% in the IRA-only revascularization group (hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.24 to 0.84; p = 0.009). A trend toward benefit was seen early after complete revascularization (p = 0.055 at 30 days). Although there was no significant reduction in death or MI, a nonsignificant reduction in all primary endpoint components was seen. There was no reduction in ischemic burden on myocardial perfusion scintigraphy or in the safety endpoints of major bleeding, contrast-induced nephropathy, or stroke between the groups.   CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting for P-PCI with multivessel disease, index admission complete revascularization significantly lowered the rate of the composite primary endpoint at 12 months compared with treating only the IRA. In such patients, inpatient total revascularization may be considered, but larger clinical trials are required to confirm this result and specifically address whether this strategy is associated with improved survival. (Complete Versus Lesion-only Primary PCI Pilot Study [CvLPRIT]; ISRCTN70913605)

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

Determinants of excess mortality following unprotected left main stem percutaneous coronary intervention.

For percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to the unprotected left main stem (UPLMS), there are limited long-term outcome data. We evaluated 5-year survival for UPLMS PCI cases taking into account background population mortality.A population-based registry of 10 682 cases of chronic stable angina (CSA), non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS), ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with (STEMI+CS) and without cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS) who received UPLMS PCI from 2005 to 2014 were matched by age, sex, year of procedure and country to death data for the UK populace of 56.6 million people. Relative survival and excess mortality were estimated.Over 26 105 person-years follow-up, crude 5-year relative survival was 93.8% for CSA, 73.1% for NSTEACS, 77.5% for STEMI-CS and 28.5% for STEMI+CS. The strongest predictor of excess mortality among CSA was renal failure (EMRR 6.73, 95% CI 4.06 to 11.15), and for NSTEACS and STEMI-CS was preprocedural ventilation (6.25, 5.05 to 7.75 and 6.92, 4.25 to 11.26, respectively). For STEMI+CS, the strongest predictor of excess mortality was preprocedural thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 0 flow (2.78, 1.87 to 4.13), whereas multivessel PCI was associated with improved survival (0.74, 0.61 to 0.90).Long-term survival following UPLMS PCI for CSA was high, approached that of the background populace and was significantly predicted by co-morbidity. For NSTEACS and STEMI-CS, the requirement for preprocedural ventilation was the strongest determinant of excess mortality. By contrast, among STEMI+CS, in whom survival was poor, the strongest determinant was preprocedural TIMI flow. Future cardiovascular cohort studies of long-term mortality should consider the impact of non-cardiovascular deaths