Design and rationale of the CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) trial: A 2x2 factorial randomized controlled trial of colchicine versus placebo and spironolactone vs placebo in patients with myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Patients experiencing myocardial infarction (MI) remain at high risk of future major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). While low-dose colchicine and spironolactone have been shown to decrease post-MI MACE, more data are required to confirm their safety and efficacy in an unselected post-MI population. Therefore, we initiated the CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) trial to address these uncertainties. METHODS: The CLEAR SYNERGY trial is a 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial of low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily versus placebo and spironolactone 25 mg daily versus placebo in 7,062 post-MI participants who were within 72 hours of the index percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We blinded participants, healthcare providers, research personnel, and outcome adjudicators to treatment allocation. The primary outcome for colchicine is the first occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, stroke, or unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization. The coprimary outcomes for spironolactone are (1) the composite of the total numbers of cardiovascular death or new or worsening heart failure and (2) the first occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death, new or worsening heart failure, recurrent MI or stroke. We finished recruitment with 7,062 participants from 104 centers in 14 countries on November 8, 2022, and plan to present the results in the fall of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: CLEAR SYNERGY is a large international randomized controlled trial that will inform the effects of low-dose colchicine and spironolactone in largely unselected post-MI patients who undergo PCI. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03048825).

Correlation of Non-Invasive Transthoracic Doppler Echocardiography with Invasive Doppler Wire-Derived Coronary Flow Reserve and Their Impact on Infarct Size in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated with Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Background: Coronary microvascular dysfunction is associated with adverse prognosis after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We aimed to compare the invasive, Doppler wire-based coronary flow reserve (CFR) with the non-invasive transthoracic Doppler echocardiography (TTDE)-derived CFR, and their ability to predict infarct size. Methods: We included 36 patients with invasive Doppler wire assessment on days 3-7 after STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), of which TTDE-derived CFR was measured in 47 vessels (29 patients) within 6 h of the invasive Doppler. Infarct size was assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance at a median of 8 months. Results: The correlation between invasive and non-invasive CFR was modest in the overall cohort (rho 0.400, p = 0.005). It improved when only measurements in the LAD artery were considered (rho 0.554, p = 0.002), with no significant correlation in the RCA artery (rho -0.190, p = 0.435). Both invasive (AUC 0.888) and non-invasive (AUC 0.868) CFR, measured in the recanalized culprit artery, showed a good ability to predict infarct sizes ≥18% of the left ventricular mass, with the optimal cut off values of 1.85 and 1.80, respectively. Conclusions: In patients with STEMI, TTDE- and Doppler wire-derived CFR exhibit significant correlation, when measured in the LAD artery, and both have a similarly strong association with the final infarct size.

Percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation coronary lesions using optimised angiographic guidance: the 18th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club.

The 2023 European Bifurcation Club (EBC) meeting took place in Warsaw in October, and the latest evidence for the use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) to optimise percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) on coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs) was a major focus. The topic generated deep discussions and general appraisal on the potential benefits of IVUS and OCT in PCI procedures. Nevertheless, despite an increasing recognition of IVUS and OCT capabilities and their recognised central role for guidance in complex CBL and left main PCI, it is expected that angiography will continue to be the primary guidance modality for CBL PCI, principally due to educational and economic barriers. Mindful of the restricted access/adoption of intracoronary imaging for CBL PCI, the EBC board decided to review and describe a series of tips and tricks which can help to optimise angiography-guided PCI for CBLs. The identified key points for achieving an optimal angiography-guided PCI include a thorough analysis of pre-PCI images (computed tomography angiography, multiple angiographic views, quantitative coronary angiography vessel estimation), a systematic application of the technical steps suggested for a given selected technique, an intraprocedural or post-PCI use of stent enhancement and a low threshold for bailout use of intravascular imaging.

Side branch predilatation during percutaneous coronary bifurcation intervention: Long-term mortality analysis.

BACKGROUND: Side branch predilatation (SBPD) during coronary bifurcation interventions is a technique that is not recommended by the latest guidelines. However, the data about the clinical outcomes after SBPD are surprisingly few. AIMS: The current study aimed to explore the association between SBPD and mortality in long-term follow-up. METHODS: All patients with coronary bifurcation stenoses revascularized with percutaneous coronary intervention were included in a prospective registry. Patients with stable angina and a bifurcation lesion with ≥50% diameter stenosis were included in the current analysis. Patients were assigned to two groups - those with SBPD(+) and those without SBPD(-). Propensity score matching was performed to equalize the risk factors and severity of coronary artery disease between the groups. A Kaplan-Meier analysis with a log-rank test for between-group differences was also performed. RESULTS: From January 2013 to June 2021, 813 patients were included in the final study population. The mean age was 67 (10) years. After propensity score matching, 648 patients remained for analysis - 324 in each group. At a median follow-up of 57 months patients in the SBPD(+) group had a higher all-cause mortality (n = 107 (33%) vs. n = 98 [30.2%]; P = 0.045) and cardiovascular mortality (n = 82 [25.3%] vs. n = 70 [21.6%]; P = 0.03) when compared with SBPD(-) patients. SBPD was independently associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSION: SBPD treatment of coronary bifurcation stenoses is associated with worse patient survival in the follow-up of up to 8 years. SBPD treatment gives better angiographic results, but this did not translate into better clinical outcomes.

FFR-Guided Complete or Culprit-Only PCI in Patients with Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease remains unclear. METHODS: In this multinational, registry-based, randomized trial, we assigned patients with STEMI or very-high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI) and multivessel disease who were undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion to receive either FFR-guided complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The two key secondary outcomes were a composite of death from any cause or myocardial infarction and unplanned revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 1542 patients underwent randomization, with 764 assigned to receive FFR-guided complete revascularization and 778 assigned to receive culprit-lesion-only PCI. At a median follow-up of 4.8 years (interquartile range, 4.3 to 5.2), a primary-outcome event had occurred in 145 patients (19.0%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 159 patients (20.4%) in the culprit-lesion-only group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.17; P = 0.53). With respect to the secondary outcomes, no apparent between-group differences were observed in the composite of death from any cause or myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.44) or unplanned revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.04). There were no apparent between-group differences in safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI or very-high-risk NSTEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, FFR-guided complete revascularization was not shown to result in a lower risk of a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization than culprit-lesion-only PCI at 4.8 years. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; FULL REVASC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02862119.).

SYNERGY-Everolimus-Eluting Stent With a Bioabsorbable Polymer in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: CLEAR SYNERGY OASIS-9 Registry.

Our objective was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the SYNERGY stent (Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, Massachusetts) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The only drug-eluting stent approved for treatment of STEMI by the Food and Drug Administration is the Taxus stent (Boston Scientific) which is no longer commercially available, so further data are needed. The CLEAR (Colchicine and spironolactone in patients with myocardial infarction) SYNERGY stent registry was embedded into a larger randomized trial of patients with STEMI (n = 7,000), comparing colchicine versus placebo and spironolactone versus placebo. The primary outcome for the SYNERGY stent registry is major adverse cardiac events (MACE) as defined by cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, or unplanned ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization within 12 months. We estimated a MACE rate of 6.3% at 12 months after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI based on the Thrombectomy vs percutaneous coronary intervention alone in STEMI (TOTAL) trial. Success was defined as upper bound of confidence interval (CI) to be less than the performance goal of 9.45%. Overall, 733 patients were enrolled from 8 countries with a mean age 60 years, 19.4% diabetes mellitus, 41.3% anterior MI, and median door-to-balloon time of 72 minutes. The MACE rate was 4.8% (95% CI 3.2 to 6.3%) at 12 months which met the success criteria against performance goal of 9.45%. The rates of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, or target vessel revascularization were 2.7%, 1.9%, 1.0%, respectively. The rates of acute definite stent thrombosis were 0.3%, subacute 0.4%, late 0.4%, and cumulative stent thrombosis of 1.1% at 12 months. In conclusion, the SYNERGY stent in STEMI performed well and was successful compared with the performance goal based on previous trials.

Effects of complete revascularization according to age in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (COMPLETE-AGE).

BACKGROUND: In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit-lesion-only PCI. Whether age influences these results remains unknown. METHODS: COMPLETE was a multinational, randomized trial evaluating a strategy of staged complete revascularization, consisting of angiography-guided PCI of all suitable nonculprit lesions, versus a strategy of culprit-lesion-only PCI. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, treatment effect according to age (≥65 years vs <65 years) was determined for the first coprimary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or new myocardial infarction (MI) and the second coprimary outcome of CV death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR). Median follow-up was 35.8 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 27.6-44.3 months). RESULTS: Of 4,041 patients randomized in COMPLETE, 1,613 were aged ≥ 65 years (39.9%). Higher event rates were observed for both coprimary outcomes in patients aged ≥ 65 years comparted with those aged < 65 years (11.2% vs 7.9%, HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.22-1.83; 14.4% vs 11.8%, HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07-1.52, respectively). Complete revascularization reduced the first coprimary outcome in patients ≥ 65 years (9.7% vs 12.5%, HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.58-1.04) and < 65 years (6.7% vs 9.1%, HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96)(interaction P = .74). The second coprimary outcome was reduced in those ≥ 65 years (HR 0.56, 95% CI, 0.43-0.74) and < 65 years (HR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.37-0.61 (interaction P = .37). A sensitivity analysis was performed with consistent results demonstrated using a 75-year threshold (albeit attenuated). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization compared with culprit-lesion-only PCI reduced major cardiovascular events regardless of patient age and could be considered as a revascularization strategy in older adults.

Sex Differences in Heart Failure Following Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Background: There have been conflicting reports regarding outcomes in women presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Objectives: The objective of the study was to examine sex-specific differences in 30-day mortality in patients with ACS and acute heart failure (HF) at the time of presentation. Methods: This was a retrospective study of patients included in the International Survey of Acute Coronary Syndromes-ARCHIVES (ISACS-ARCHIVES; NCT04008173). Acute HF was defined as Killip classes ≥2. Participants were stratified according to ACS presentation: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). Differences in 30-day mortality and acute HF presentation at admission between sexes were examined using inverse propensity weighting based on the propensity score. Estimates were compared by test of interaction on the log scale. Results: A total of 87,812 patients were included, of whom 30,922 (35.2%) were women. Mortality was higher in women compared with men in those presenting with STEMI (risk ratio [RR]: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.56-1.73) and NSTE-ACS (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.09-1.28; P interaction <0.001). Acute HF was more common in women when compared to men with STEMI (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.20-1.29) but not in those with NSTE-ACS (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.97-1.08) (P interaction <0.001). The presence of acute HF increased the risk of mortality for both sexes (odds ratio: 6.60; 95% CI: 6.25-6.98). Conclusions: In patients presenting with ACS, mortality is higher in women. The presence of acute HF at hospital presentation increases the risk of mortality in both sexes. Women with STEMI are more likely to present with acute HF and this may, in part, explain sex differences in mortality. These findings may be helpful to improve sex-specific personalized risk stratification.

DES Selection for Left Main and Coronary Bifurcation Stenting.

Coronary bifurcation lesions present a challenging lesion subset regarding procedural complexity and worse patient outcomes as compared to simple lesions. Drug eluting stents (DES), as the current standard of care for percutaneous myocardial revascularization, have tubular design and uniform diameter, and therefore, need to be subjected to a standardized set of procedural modifications, to optimally fit and reconstruct underlying bifurcation anatomy. Since contemporary DES have various design platforms, with diverse mechanical properties, we must be aware of the device's favorable characteristics and limitations, to ensure maximal procedural safety and success. This is especially true for bifurcation lesion stenting, during which device integrity will often be eventually tested by undergoing specific procedural steps, such as proximal balloon optimization, kissing-balloon inflations, or even intentional stent crushing. In this review we address the design characteristics of contemporary DES, their bifurcation-specific experimental testing data, and reported clinical results, in an attempt to provide relevant information and help in device selection for bifurcation stenting procedures.

The Use of Cutting Balloons in Published Cases of Acute Coronary Syndrome Caused by Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection.

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a non-traumatic, non-atherosclerotic layering of the coronary artery wall due to the presence of a subintimal hematoma or an intimal tear with the creation of a false lumen that compresses the true lumen and restricts or obstructs the flow. Patients with SCAD and preserved coronary flow are treated conservatively according to the general recommendations. However, percutaneous coronary intervention should be considered in patients with artery occlusion and/or refractory ischemia. Stenting is associated with increased risks comprising stenting in the false lumen, in-stent thrombosis, and/or stent malappositon as well as antegrade or retrograde propagation of the intramural hematoma. Intracoronary imaging is of great value both for the diagnosis and treatment of SCAD. There is rising scrutiny on the use of cutting balloons in acute coronary syndrome caused by SCAD. The idea of using cutting balloons is to fenestrate the intima and drain the intramural hematoma. Our review presents an analysis of 17 published cases of cutting balloon (CB) use in SCAD. What is encouraging is that of the 12 published cases, in 11 Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 3 flow was established with this technique, and TIMI 2 flow in one, without subsequent stent implantation. Four patients received a stent after the CB use, while one patient underwent CB angioplasty after hematoma propagation caused by stent implantation. In all cases, patients were asymptomatic at follow-up, with TIMI 3 flow.

Intervenção coronariana percutânea (ICP) para pacientes estáveis: há algum benefício além do alívio dos sintomas? / Intervención coronaria percutánea (icp) para pacientes estables: ¿hay algún beneficio además de los síntomas? / Percutaneous coronary intervention for stable patients: is there any benefit beyond symptom relief?

As indicações para intervenção coronária percutânea (ICP) continuam a evoluir devido ao contínuo desenvolvimento da tecnologia, critérios de seleção mais amplos para pacientes e lesões e novas evidências advindas de testes clínicos. Uma controvérsia considerável foi gerada pelos resultados principais do estudo COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation), o qual não demonstrou diferenças no resultado em longo prazo para pacientes estáveis com doença coronariana, randomizados para uma estratégia inicial de ICP mais tratamento médico otimizado versus tratamento médico otimizado isolado. Em pacientes com angina estável crônica, o tratamento médico permanece sendo a pedra fundamental e deveria ser otimizado em todos os pacientes, enquanto os maiores objetivos alcançáveis da ICP são ter efeito sobre os sintomas, através de sua diminuição ou prevenção, reduzir a necessidade de procedimentos subsequentes e aliviar a isquemia. Em pacientes com doença arterial coronariana (DAC) estável, entretanto, nenhuma redução na incidência de morte ou infarto do miocárdio foi observada e essas limitações da ICP nesse cenário clínico precisam ser enfatizadas. A mensagem do estudo COURAGE pode ser refinada com base nos recentes sub-estudos nuclear e angiográfico, de forma que os pacientes com isquemia residual significante, submetidos a tratamento médico otimizado, deveriam ser considerados para tratamento com ICP, já que estão associados com maior probabilidade de morte e infarto do miocárdio. Entretanto, esses achados precisam ser confirmados por avaliação prospectiva antes de sua mais ampla aceitação pela comunidade intervencionista.

The indications for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) continue to evolve because of the steady improvement in technology, broadened patient and lesion selection criteria, and new evidence from clinical trials. Considerable controversy was generated by the main results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial, in which no difference in long-term outcome was reported for stable patients with coronary disease randomized to an initial strategy of PCI plus optimal medical therapy versus optimal medical therapy alone. In patients with chronic stable angina, medical therapy remains the cornerstone and should be optimized for all patients, while the major achievable goals of PCI are to affect symptoms, either by decreasing or preventing them, reducing the need for subsequent procedures and relieving ischemia. In patients with stable coronary artery disease, however, no reduction in death or myocardial infarction has been observed, and these limitations of PCI in this clinical setting need to be emphasized. The message from the COURAGE trial may be refined based on recently presented nuclear and angiographic sub-studies, such that patients with substantial residual ischemia on optimal medical therapy should be considered for crossover PCI, as it is associated with greater likelihood of death and myocardial infarction. However, those findings need to be confirmed by prospective evaluation before being widely accepted by the interventional community.

Las indicaciones para intervención coronaria percutánea (ICP) siguen evolucionando debido al desarrollo continuo de la tecnología, a criterios de selección más amplios para pacientes y lesiones y a nuevas evidencias advenidas de ensayos clínicos. Los resultados principales del estudio COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) generaron una controversia considerable, la que no reveló diferencias en el resultado a largo plazo para pacientes estables con enfermedad coronaria, randomizados para una estrategia inicial de ICP más tratamiento médico optimizado versus tratamiento médico optimizado aislado. En pacientes con angina estable crónica, el tratamiento médico sigue siendo la piedra fundamental y se debería optimizarlo en todos los pacientes; mientras que los mayores objetivos alcanzables de la ICP son producir efecto sobre los síntomas, a través de su disminución o prevención, reducir la necesidad de procedimientos subsecuentes y aliviar la isquemia. En pacientes con enfermedad arterial coronaria (EAC) estable, sin embargo, ninguna reducción en la incidencia de muerte o infarto de miocardio se observó, y han de enfatizarse esas limitaciones de la ICP en ese escenario clínico. El mensaje del estudio COURAGE se puede refinar con base en los recientes subestudios nuclear y angiográfico, de forma que los pacientes con isquemia residual significante, sometidos a tratamiento médico optimizado, se deberían tener en cuenta para tratamiento con ICP, ya que están asociados a una mayor probabilidad de muerte e infarto de miocardio. Sin embargo, esos hallazgos necesitan ser confirmados por evaluación prospectiva antes de su más amplia aceptación por la comunidad intervencionista.