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

The everolimus eluting Synergy MegatronTM drug-eluting stent platform: Early outcomes from the European Synergy MegatronTM Implanters' Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Synergy MegatronTM is an everolimus-drug eluting stent that may offer advantages in the treatment of aorto-ostial disease and large proximal vessels. AIMS: To report the short- to medium-term clinical outcomes from the European Synergy MegatronTM Implanters' Registry. METHODS: This registry was an investigator-initiated study conducted at 14 European centers. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularisation. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-five patients underwent PCI with MegatronTM between 2019 and 2021. Patients were 69 ± 12 years old, 26% had diabetes mellitus, 24% had moderate-severe left ventricular impairment and 59% presented with an acute coronary syndrome. 15% were deemed prohibitively high risk for surgical revascularisation. The target vessel involved the left main stem in 55%, the ostium of the RCA in 13% and was a true bifurcation (Medina 1,1,1) in 50%.  At 1 year, TLF was observed in 40 patients, with 26 (65%) occurring within the first 30 days. The cumulative incidence of TLF was 4.5% at 30 days and 8.6% (95% CI 6.3-11.7) at 1 year. The incidence of stent thrombosis was 0.5% with no late stent thromboses. By multivariate analysis, the strongest independent predictors of TLF were severe left ventricular impairment (HR 3.43, 95% CI: 1.67-6.76, p < 0.001) and a target vessel involving the left main (HR 4.00 95% CI 1.81-10.15 p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Synergy MegatronTM everolimus eluting stent in a 'real-world' setting shows favorable outcomes at 30 days and 1 year

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

The direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 on Acute Coronary Syndromes

Highlights: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in wide-ranging direct and indirect consequences for patients with ACS.•A sudden, unexpected decline in hospitalizations for ACS and an increase in out-of-hospital deaths coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.•ACS in patients with COVID-19 is associated with excess rates of adverse events, particularly when medical intervention is delayed.•During the COVID-19 pandemic, many patients with ACS have been required to undergo alternative diagnostic and therapeutic strategies due to reorganization of health care resources.•Studies to further elucidate the complex relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection and myocardial injury or infarction are required

Early invasive versus non-invasive assessment in patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) comprises a broad spectrum of disease ranging from unstable angina to myocardial infarction. International guidelines recommend a routine invasive strategy for managing patients with NSTE-ACS at high to very high-risk, supported by evidence of improved composite ischaemic outcomes as compared with a selective invasive strategy. However, accurate diagnosis of NSTE-ACS in the acute setting is challenging due to the spectrum of non-coronary disease that can manifest with similar symptoms. Heterogeneous clinical presentations and limited uptake of risk prediction tools can confound physician decision-making regarding the use and timing of invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Large proportions of patients with suspected NSTE-ACS do not require revascularisation but may unnecessarily undergo ICA with its attendant risks and associated costs. Advances in coronary CT angiography and cardiac MRI have prompted evaluation of whether non-invasive strategies may improve patient selection, or whether tailored approaches are better suited to specific subgroups. Future directions include (1) better understanding of risk stratification as a guide to investigation and therapy in suspected NSTE-ACS, (2) randomised clinical trials of non-invasive imaging versus standard of care approaches prior to ICA and (3) defining the optimal timing of very early ICA in high-risk NSTE-ACS