Complete vs Culprit-Only Revascularization in Older Patients With Myocardial Infarction and High Bleeding Risk: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) have a poor prognosis, and it is not known if they may benefit from complete revascularization after myocardial infarction (MI). Objective: To investigate the benefit of physiology-guided complete revascularization vs a culprit-only strategy in patients with HBR, MI, and multivessel disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prespecified analysis of the Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients With Multivessel Disease (FIRE) randomized clinical trial data. FIRE was an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter trial. Patients 75 years or older with MI and multivessel disease were enrolled at 34 European centers from July 2019 through October 2021. Physiology treatment was performed either by angiography- or wire-based assessment. Patients were divided into HBR or non-HBR categories in accordance with the Academic Research Consortium HBR document. Interventions: Patients were randomized to either physiology-guided complete revascularization or culprit-only strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome comprised a composite of death, MI, stroke, or revascularization at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular death or MI and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 3 to 5. Results: Among 1445 patients (mean [SD] age, 81 [5] years; 917 male [63%]), 1025 (71%) met HBR criteria. Patients with HBR were at higher risk for the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.47-2.76), cardiovascular death or MI (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.26-2.83), and BARC types 3 to 5 (HR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.40-7.64). The primary end point was significantly reduced with physiology-guided complete revascularization as compared with culprit-only strategy in patients with HBR (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.96). No indication of interaction was noted between revascularization strategy and HBR status for primary and secondary end points. Conclusions and Relevance: HBR status is prevalent among older patients with MI, significantly increasing the likelihood of adverse events. Physiology-guided complete revascularization emerges as an effective strategy, in comparison with culprit-only revascularization, for mitigating ischemic adverse events, including cardiovascular death and MI. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03772743.

Impact of pre-admission physical activity on benefits of physiology-guided complete revascularization in older patients with myocardial infarction: insights from the FIRE trial.

AIMS: The present analysis from the Functional Assessment in Elderly Myocardial Infarction Patients with Multivessel Disease (FIRE) trial aims to explore the significance of pre-admission physical activity and assess whether the benefits of physiology-guided complete revascularization apply consistently to sedentary and active older patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients aged 75 years or more with myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel disease were randomized to receive physiology-guided complete revascularization or culprit-only strategy. The primary outcome was a composite of death, MI, stroke, or any revascularization within a year. Secondary endpoints included the composite of cardiovascular death or MI, as well as single components of the primary endpoint. Pre-admission physical activity was categorized into three groups: (i) absent (sedentary), (ii) light, and (iii) vigorous. Among 1445 patients, 692 (48%) were sedentary, whereas 560 (39%) and 193 (13%) performed light and vigorous physical activity, respectively. Patients engaging in light or vigorous pre-admission physical activity exhibited a reduced risk of the primary outcome compared with sedentary individuals [light hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.91 and vigorous HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.07-0.91, respectively]. These trends were also observed for death, cardiovascular death, or MI. When comparing physiology-guided complete revascularization vs. culprit-only strategy, no significant interaction was observed for primary and secondary endpoints when stratified by sedentary or active status. CONCLUSION: In older patients with MI, pre-admission physical activity emerges as a robust and independent prognostic determinant. Physiology-guided complete revascularization stands out an effective strategy in reducing ischaemic adverse events, irrespective of pre-admission physical activity status. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03772743.

The Functional Assessment in Elderly Myocardial Infarction Patients with Multivessel Disease (FIRE) trial has shown that physiology-guided complete revascularization reduces ischaemic adverse events in older patients with myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel disease. Older patients who engage in light or vigorous physical activity before hospitalization for MI have a reduced risk of the primary composite outcome of death, MI, stroke, or ischaemia-driven revascularization. These benefits extend to all secondary cardiovascular outcomes as well. In the present subanalysis of the FIRE trial, we find that the positive prognosis associated with physiology-guided complete revascularization holds true even for patients with a sedentary lifestyle. This means that this type of revascularization can effectively reduce ischaemic adverse events in older patients with MI and multivessel disease, regardless of their physical activity levels.