Instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided revascularization of nonculprit lesions in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary disease: The WAVE registry.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization (CR) of nonculprit lesions (NCL) is strongly recommended in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD), but no definitive evidence is available regarding which diagnostic strategy should be preferred. Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) has never been investigated in this setting. We aimed to describe clinical outcomes of a cohort of patients undergoing iFR-guided CR. METHODS: Following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), consecutive patients with STEMI and intermediate NCL were enrolled and destinated to an iFR-guided CR. NCL with iFR ≤ 0.89 underwent PCI while NCL with iFR > 0.89 were deferred. The primary endpoint was NC target lesion failure (NC-TLF) and the secondary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 209 patients were enrolled (ischemic iFR = 83; nonischemic iFR = 126). Patients with ischemic iFR showed a higher prevalence of traditional cardiovascular risk factors and angiographically determined three-vessel disease. In the entire cohort, NC-TLF and MACE occurred in 6.7% and 10.5% of patients, respectively. Compared to the deferred group, patients with ischemic iFR experienced significantly higher rates of both NC-TLF (3.2% vs. 12.1%; p = 0.021) and MACE (7.1% vs. 16.9%; p = 0.041). These results were mostly driven by increased rates of NC-TLF PCI and further revascularizations in this latter group, while no differences were evident in terms of nonfatal myocardial infarction or death. At multivariable analysis, the strongest predictor of MACE was symptom onset to balloon time (HR = 1.17 [95% CI: 1.04-1.31], p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In our study enrolling STEMI patients with MVD, iFR assessment was feasible and safe. PCI-deferring according to iFR evaluation of NCL was associated with low rates of adverse events. Further randomized studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularization compared to current practice in this setting.

Instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided revascularization of non-culprit lesion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary disease: design and rationale of the WAVE Registry.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes and multivessel coronary artery disease is challenging. There is a growing body of evidence supporting invasive functional evaluation of multivessel disease with FFR or iFR, which it has been added to the literature. In this regard, the WAVE Study recently demonstrated the diagnostic accuracy of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) functional assessment of non-culprit lesions in multivessel patients with STEMI. However, no studies have still verified the long-term clinical impact of an iFR-guided revascularization in this setting of patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI and presenting multivessel disease will be enrolled. After the treatment of the culprit lesion, an iFR-guided functional assessment of non-culprit lesions will be done if iFR≤0.89 PCI will be performed during the index procedure or staged. Conversely, iFR>0.89 will direct the patient towards a conservative approach. RESULTS: The study start date was May 1, 2018. The enrollment phase was completed on March 30, 2020. The primary endpoint is the occurrence of target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization of the vessel previously assessed with iFR. Secondary endpoints include MACE (cardiovascular death, non-fatal MI, any revascularization). CONCLUSIONS: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term clinical impact of an iFR-guided revascularization of the non-culprit lesions in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

Three-year follow-up of the MULTIcentre evaluation of Single high-dose Bolus TiRofiban versus Abciximab with Sirolimus-eluting STEnt or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction StudY (MULTISTRATEGY).

BACKGROUND: The Multicentre Evaluation of Single high-dose Bolus TiRofiban versus Abciximab with Sirolimus-eluting Stent or Bare Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study [MULTISTRATEGY]) randomised 745 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction to receive high-dose bolus (HDB) tirofiban or abciximab infusion and sirolimus-eluting (SES) or uncoated-stent (BMS) implantation. Tirofiban was non-inferior to abciximab in terms of ST-segment resolution after intervention, whereas 8 month-major adverse cardiac events occurred in 14.5% in the BMS and 7.8% in the SES groups (P = 0.0039), reflecting a reduction of reintervention rates (10.2% vs. 3.2%). A three-year follow-up was performed to extend previous short- to mid-term findings. METHODS AND RESULTS: Complete data at 3 years was available for 736 patients (99%). All-cause mortality was 6.7% in the tirofiban and 7.8% in the abciximab (P = 0.56) and 7.5% in the BMS vs 7.0 in the SES groups, P = 0.79. The composite of all-cause death or MI was identical at 12.9% in tirofiban and abciximab groups, P = 0.99 and it occurred in 13.2% in the BMS vs. 12.6% in the SES groups (P = 0.83). The need for reintervention remained more than twice as common with BMS (13.7%; versus 6.2%, P = 0.0006). The cumulative rate of stent thrombosis (ST) did not differ. This is inspite of a higher very late definite, probable or possible ST thrombosis rate in the SES group. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year follow-up of MULTISTRATEGY demonstrated comparable outcomes with HDB Tirofiban or abciximab and a sustained efficacy of SES to reduce reintervention with no difference in death, repeat MI or ST.

Sex-specific benefits of sirolimus-eluting stent on long-term outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study trial.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the relation between female sex and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) use on long-term outcomes in acute myocardial infarction. BACKGROUND: There are no data on sex-specific differences in long-term benefit of SES use compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) use among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary interventions. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the MULTISTRATEGY trial. Hazard ratios (HRs) of events with 95% CI for sex and stent type were computed using Cox proportional regression with adjustment for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 744 patients, 64 years old (55-73 years old), 179 (24.1%) women, were enrolled. After a follow-up of 1,080 days, SES use was associated with a significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events, that is, the composite of all-cause death, reinfarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) (13.9% vs 23.6%, adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.94, P = .026) and of TVR (6.1% vs 15.1%, adjusted HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.63, P < .001) in men. Conversely, SES use was not associated to a better outcome among women (major adverse cardiovascular events 21.9% in SES vs 18.2% in the BMS group, adjusted HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.53-3.02, P = .59; TVR 6.6% vs 9.1%, adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17-2.21, P = .46). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, the clinical benefit of SES use, over BMS, at 3-year follow-up was restricted to men and was not observed among women.

Identifying factors that predict the choice and success rate of radial artery catheterisation in contemporary real world cardiology practice: a sub-analysis of the PREVAIL study data.

AIMS: To assess: the reasons behind an operator choosing to perform radial artery catheterisation (RAC) as against femoral arterial catheterisation, and to explore why RAC may fail in the real world. METHODS AND RESULTS: A pre-determined analysis of PREVAIL study database was performed. Relevant data were collected in a prospective, observational survey of 1,052 consecutive patients undergoing invasive cardiovascular procedures at nine Italian hospitals over a one month observation period. By multivariate analysis, the independent predictors of RAC choice were having the procedure performed: (1) at a high procedural volume centre; and (2) by an operator who performs a high volume of radial procedures; clinical variables played no statistically significant role. RAC failure was predicted independently by (1) a lower operator propensity to use RAC; and (2) the presence of obstructive peripheral artery disease. A 10-fold lower rate of RAC failure was observed among operators who perform RAC for > 85% of their personal caseload than among those who use RAC < 25% of the time (3.8% vs. 33.0%, respectively); by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis, no threshold value for operator RAC volume predicted RAC failure. CONCLUSIONS: A routine RAC in all-comers is superior to a selective strategy in terms of feasibility and success rate.

Comparison of angioplasty with infusion of tirofiban or abciximab and with implantation of sirolimus-eluting or uncoated stents for acute myocardial infarction: the MULTISTRATEGY randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation is a complementary treatment strategy to reduce major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing angioplasty for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). It is uncertain whether there may be similar benefits in replacing abciximab with high-dose bolus tirofiban. Similarly, the use of drug-eluting stents in this patient population is currently discouraged because of conflicting results on efficacy reported in randomized trials and safety concerns reported by registries. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of high-dose bolus tirofiban and of sirolimus-eluting stents as compared with abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation in patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: An open-label, 2 x 2 factorial trial of 745 patients presenting with STEMI or new left bundle-branch block at 16 referral centers in Italy, Spain, and Argentina between October 2004 and April 2007. INTERVENTIONS: High-dose bolus tirofiban vs abciximab infusion and sirolimus-eluting stent vs uncoated stent implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For drug comparison, at least 50% ST-segment elevation resolution at 90 minutes postintervention with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 9% difference (relative risk, 0.89); for stent comparison, the rate of major adverse cardiac events, defined as the composite of death from any cause, reinfarction, and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization within 8 months. RESULTS: ST-segment resolution occurred in 302 of 361 patients (83.6%) who had received abciximab infusion and 308 of 361 (85.3%) who had received tirofiban infusion (relative risk, 1.020; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.958-1.086; P < .001 for noninferiority). Ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes were similar in the tirofiban and abciximab groups. At 8 months, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 54 patients (14.5%) with uncoated stents and 29 (7.8%) with sirolimus stents (P = .004), predominantly reflecting a reduction of revascularization rates (10.2% vs 3.2%). The incidence of stent thrombosis was similar in the 2 stent groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with abciximab, tirofiban therapy was associated with noninferior resolution of ST-segment elevation at 90 minutes following coronary intervention, whereas sirolimus-eluting stent implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac events than uncoated stents within 8 months after intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00229515.