Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes with previous coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis of invasive vs. conservative management.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A routine invasive strategy is recommended in the management of higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs). However, patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery were excluded from key trials that informed these guidelines. Thus, the benefit of a routine invasive strategy is less certain in this specific subgroup. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. A comprehensive search was performed of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible studies were RCTs of routine invasive vs. a conservative or selective invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS that included patients with previous CABG. Summary data were collected from the authors of each trial if not previously published. Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and cardiac-related hospitalization. Using a random-effects model, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Summary data were obtained from 11 RCTs, including previously unpublished subgroup outcomes of nine trials, comprising 897 patients with previous CABG (477 routine invasive, 420 conservative/selective invasive) followed up for a weighted mean of 2.0 (range 0.5-10) years. A routine invasive strategy did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.29), cardiac mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.70-1.58), myocardial infarction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65-1.23), or cardiac-related hospitalization (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis assessing the effect of a routine invasive strategy in patients with prior CABG who present with NSTE-ACS. The results confirm the under-representation of this patient group in RCTs of invasive management in NSTE-ACS and suggest that there is no benefit to a routine invasive strategy compared to a conservative approach with regard to major adverse cardiac events. These findings should be validated in an adequately powered RCT.

Invasive vs. conservative management of older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) are less likely to receive guideline-recommended care including coronary angiography and revascularization. Evidence-based recommendations regarding interventional management strategies in this patient cohort are scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of routine invasive vs. conservative management of NSTEACS by using individual patient data (IPD) from all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including older patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus were searched between 1 January 2010 and 11 September 2023. RCTs investigating routine invasive and conservative strategies in persons >70 years old with NSTEACS were included. Observational studies or trials involving populations outside the target range were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year. One-stage IPD meta-analyses were adopted by use of random-effects and fixed-effect Cox models. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023379819). RESULTS: Six eligible studies were identified including 1479 participants. The primary endpoint occurred in 181 of 736 (24.5%) participants in the invasive management group compared with 215 of 743 (28.9%) participants in the conservative management group with a hazard ratio (HR) from random-effects model of 0.87 (95% CI 0.63-1.22; P = .43). The hazard for MI at 1 year was significantly lower in the invasive group compared with the conservative group (HR from random-effects model 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.87; P = .006). Similar results were seen for urgent revascularization (HR from random-effects model 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.95; P = .037). There was no significant difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found that routine invasive treatment for NSTEACS in older patients reduces the risk of a composite of all-cause mortality and MI within 1 year compared with conservative management. However, there is convincing evidence that invasive treatment significantly lowers the risk of repeat MI or urgent revascularisation. Further evidence is needed from ongoing larger clinical trials.

Safety and Feasibility Using a Fluid-Filled Wire to Avoid Hydrostatic Errors in Physiological Intracoronary Measurements.

Background: Using a fluid-filled wire with a pressure sensor outside the patient compared to a conventional pressure wire may avoid the systematic error introduced by the hydrostatic pressure within the coronary circulation. Aims: To assess the safety and effectiveness of the novel fluid-filled wire, Wirecath (Cavis Technologies, Uppsala, Sweden), as well as its ability to avoid the hydrostatic pressure error. Methods and Results: The Wirecath pressure wire was used in 45 eligible patients who underwent invasive coronary angiography and had a clinical indication for invasive coronary pressure measurement at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. In 29 patients, a simultaneous measurement was performed with a conventional coronary pressure wire (PressureWire X, Abbott Medical, Plymouth, MN, USA), and in 19 patients, the vertical height difference between the tip of the guide catheter and the wire measure point was measured in a 90-degree lateral angiographic projection. No adverse events caused by the pressure wires were reported. The mean Pd/Pa and mean FFR using the fluid-filled wire and the sensor-tipped wire differed significantly; however, after correcting for the hydrostatic effect, the sensor-tipped wire pressure correlated well with the fluid-filled wire pressure (R = 0.74 vs. R = 0.89 at rest and R = 0.89 vs. R = 0.98 at hyperemia). Conclusion: Hydrostatic errors in physiologic measurements can be avoided by using the fluid-filled Wirecath wire, which was safe to use in the present study. This trial is registered with NCT04776577 and NCT04802681.