Systematic review and meta-analysis of optimal P2Y₁₂ blockade in dual antiplatelet therapy for patients with diabetes with acute coronary syndrome

Background: Patients with diabetes are at increased risk of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and their mortality and morbidity outcomes are significantly worse following ACS events, independent of other comorbidities. This systematic review sought to establish the optimum management strategy with focus on P2Y₁₂ blockade in patients with diabetes with ACS. Methods: MEDLINE (1946 to present) and EMBASE (1974 to present) databases, abstracts from major cardiology conferences and previously published systematic reviews were searched to June 2014. Relevant randomised control trials with clinical outcomes for P2Y₁₂ inhibitors in adult patients with diabetes with ACS were scrutinised independently by 2 authors with applicable data was extracted for primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke; enabling calculation of relative risks with 95% CI with subsequent direct and indirect comparison. Results: Four studies studied clopidogrel in patients with diabetes, with two (3122 patients) having primary outcome data showing superiority of clopidogrel against placebo with RR0.84 (95% CI 0.72–0.99). Irrespective of management strategy, the newer agents prasugrel (2 studies) and ticagrelor (1 study) had a lower primary event rate compared with clopidogrel; RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.97) and RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.02), respectively. When ticagrelor was indirectly compared with prasugrel, there was a trend to an improved primary outcome with prasugrel (RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.31)) particularly in those managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.59)). Prasugrel demonstrated a statistical superiority with prevention of further MI with RR 1.48 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.97). This was not at the expense of increased major thrombolysis in MI (TIMI) bleeding rates RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.51). Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows the addition of a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor is superior to placebo, with a trend favouring the use of prasugrel in patients with diabetes with ACS, particularly those undergoing PCI

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

Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography–Guided Management of Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta–Analysis of Contemporary Randomised Controlled Trials

Background and Aims: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes after fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided versus angiography-guided management for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) have produced conflicting results. We investigated the efficacy and safety of an FFR-guided versus angiography-guided management strategy among patients with obstructive CAD. Methods: A systematic electronic search of the major databases was performed from inception to September 2022. We included studies of patients presenting with angina or myocardial infarction (MI), managed with medications, percutaneous coronary intervention, or bypass graft surgery. A meta-analysis was performed by pooling the risk ratio (RR) using a random-effects model. The endpoints of interest were all-cause mortality, MI and unplanned revascularisation. Results: Eight RCTs, with outcome data from 5077 patients, were included. The weighted mean follow up was 22 months. When FFR-guided management was compared to angiography-guided management, there was no difference in all-cause mortality [3.5% vs. 3.7%, RR: 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62–1.60), p = 0.98, heterogeneity (I2) 43%], MI [5.3% vs. 5.9%, RR: 0.93 (95%CI 0.66–1.32), p = 0.69, I2 42%], or unplanned revascularisation [7.4% vs. 7.9%, RR: 0.92 (95%CI 0.76–1.11), p = 0.37, I2 0%]. However, the number patients undergoing planned revascularisation by either stent or surgery was significantly lower with an FFR-guided strategy [weighted mean difference: 14 (95% CI 3 to 25)%, p =< 0.001]. Conclusion: In patients with obstructive CAD, an FFR-guided management strategy did not impact on all-cause mortality, MI and unplanned revascularisation, when compared to an angiography-guided management strategy, but led to up to a quarter less patients needing revascularisation