Multivessel PCI Guided by FFR or Angiography for Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who have multivessel disease, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for nonculprit lesions (complete revascularization) is superior to treatment of the culprit lesion alone. However, whether complete revascularization that is guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is superior to an angiography-guided procedure is unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI of the infarct-related artery to receive complete revascularization guided by either FFR or angiography. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) number of stents that were placed per patient for nonculprit lesions was 1.01±0.99 in the FFR-guided group and 1.50±0.86 in the angiography-guided group. During follow-up, a primary outcome event occurred in 32 of 586 patients (5.5%) in the FFR-guided group and in 24 of 577 patients (4.2%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 2.23; P = 0.31). Death occurred in 9 patients (1.5%) in the FFR-guided group and in 10 (1.7%) in the angiography-guided group; nonfatal myocardial infarction in 18 (3.1%) and 10 (1.7%), respectively; and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in 15 (2.6%) and 11 (1.9%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI undergoing complete revascularization, an FFR-guided strategy did not have a significant benefit over an angiography-guided strategy with respect to the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization at 1 year. However, given the wide confidence intervals for the estimate of effect, the findings do not allow for a conclusive interpretation. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health and Abbott; FLOWER-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02943954.).

Comparison of outcomes in patients with or without ARC-HBR criteria undergoing PCI with polymer-free biolimus coated stents: The BioFreedom France study.

BACKGROUND: The polymer-free biolimus coated stent (BioFreedom) was shown to be superior to bare metal stents in the LEADERS FREE randomized trial in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients treated with 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, there is limited outcome data with this device in an all-comers' population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective single-arm study of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with the polymer-free biolimus coated stent in 25 centers in France with wide inclusion criteria including multivessel disease, complex lesions, and acute coronary syndromes. The primary endpoint was the incidence of target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (MI) or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (ci-TLR) at 1-year. The patient population was classified according to the presence (or not) of HBR criteria according to the recent ARC-HBR definition. RESULTS: Between April 2019 and April 2020, 1497 patients were enrolled. TLF occurred in 101 (6.9%) patients, including cardiac death in 35 (2.4%), target vessel MI in 20 (1.4%) and ci-TLR in 65 (4.5%) of them. There were 491 HBR patients (32.8%) and 1006 non-HBR patients. The median duration of DAPT was 74 days in the HBR group versus 348 days in the non-HBR group (p < 0.0001). TLF occurred in 44 (9.2%) of the HBR group and in 57 (5.8%) of the non-HBR group (relative risk 1.62 [95% confidence interval: 1.10-2.41], p = 0015). Compared to the non-HBR group, HBR patients had higher rates of cardiac death (4.4% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.0005) and target vessel MI (2.9% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.0003), but similar rates of ci-TLR. BARC 3-5 bleeding occurred in 6.2% of the HBR group versus 1.4% of the non-HBR group (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In this multicenter all-comers study, HBR patients treated with a polymer-free biolimus coated stent had, compared to non-HBR patients, an increased risk of cardiac death and MI, and despite a shorter duration of DAPT, continued to have higher rates of BARC 3-5 bleeding.

Clinical impact of FFR-guided PCI compared to angio-guided PCI from the France PCI registry.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare, in a national French registry (FrancePCI), the clinical impact of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with angio-guided PCI at 1 year. BACKGROUND: FFR has become the invasive gold standard to quantify myocardial ischemia generated by a coronary stenosis in patients with chronic coronary syndrome, but in clinical practice it is still underutilised to guide PCI compared to angiography (angio). METHODS: We extracted from the FrancePCI database all chronic coronary syndrome patients treated with PCI for coronary stenosis <90% between 2014 and 2019. Our composite clinical endpoint was the rate of major adverse clinical events (MACE). RESULTS: Fourteen thousand three hundred eighty-four patients with 1-year clinical follow-up were included. Among them, 13,125 had angio-guided PCI (91%) and 1259 (9%) had FFR-guided PCI. We observed a significantly higher rate of MACE in the angio-guided group versus the FFR-guided group: 1478 (11.3%) versus 100 (7.9%) (p < 0.0001), respectively, with hazard ratio (HR) of 1.440, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.211-1.713] (p = 0.0004). This result was driven by the higher occurrence of death in the angio-guided group versus the FFR-guided-group: 506 (3.9%) versus 17 (1.4%) (p < 0.0001), respectively, with HR of 2.845, 95% CI [2.099-3.856] (p < 0.0001). After adjustment for potential confounding factors, HRs were 1.287, 95% CI [1.028-1.613] (p = 0.028) for MACE and 2.527, 95% CI [1.452-4.399] (p = 0.001) for death. No significant differences between angio-guided PCI and FFR-guided PCI were observed for other clinical endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: FFR-guided PCI improves outcome at 1 year compared to angio-guided PCI with a reduction of 64% of death.

Three-Year Outcomes With Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided or Angiography-Guided Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with multivessel disease with successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, the FLOWER-MI trial (Flow Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) showed that a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy was not superior to an angiography-guided strategy for treatment of noninfarct-related artery lesions regarding the 1-year risk of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization. The extension phase of the trial was planned using the same primary outcome to determine whether a difference in outcomes would be observed with a longer follow-up. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease with successful percutaneous coronary intervention of the infarct-related artery to receive complete revascularization guided by either FFR (n=586) or angiography (n=577). RESULTS: After 3 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 52 of 498 patients (9.40%) in the FFR-guided group and in 44 of 502 patients (8.17%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.79-1.77]; P=0.4). Death occurred in 22 patients (4.00%) in the FFR-guided group and in 23 (4.32%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.53-1.71]); nonfatal myocardial infarction in 23 (4.13%) and 14 (2.56%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 0.84-3.16]); and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in 21 (3.83%) and 18 (3.36%; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.61-2.16]), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although event rates in the trial were lower than expected, in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing complete revascularization, an FFR-guided strategy did not have a significant benefit over an angiography-guided strategy with respect to the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization up to 3 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02943954.

Immediate versus staged complete myocardial revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: A post hoc analysis of the randomized FLOWER-MI trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, percutaneous coronary intervention for non-culprit lesions is superior to treatment of the culprit lesion alone. The optimal timing for non-infarct-related artery revascularization - immediate versus staged - has not been investigated adequately. AIM: We aimed to assess clinical outcomes at 1 year in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease using immediate versus staged non-infarct-related artery revascularization. METHODS: Outcomes were analysed in patients from the randomized FLOWER-MI trial, in whom, after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention, non-culprit lesions were assessed using fractional flow reserve or angiography during the index procedure or during a staged procedure during the initial hospital stay, ≤5 days after the index procedure. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and unplanned hospitalization with urgent revascularization at 1year. RESULTS: Among 1171 patients enrolled in this study, 1119 (96.2%) had complete revascularization performed during a staged procedure, and 44 (3.8%) at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention. During follow-up, a primary outcome event occurred in one of the patients (2.3%) with an immediate strategy and in 55 patients (4.9%) with a staged strategy (adjusted hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 0.39-12.69; P=0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Staged non-infarct-related artery complete revascularization was the strategy preferred by investigators in practice in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease. This strategy was not superior to immediate revascularization, which, in the context of this trial, was used in a small proportion of patients. Further randomized studies are needed to confirm these observational findings.

Deleterious synergistic effects of acute heart failure and diabetes mellitus in patients with acute coronary syndrome: Data from the FAST-MI Registries.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) predisposes patients to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and acute heart failure (AHF). AIMS: To assess correlates of AHF occurring at the early stage of AMI and synergism between early AHF and DM on 5-year mortality. METHODS: FAST-MI 2005 and 2010 included 7839 consecutive patients admitted for AMI. RESULTS: Overall, 2151 patients (27.4%) had a history of diabetes mellitus (DM), of whom 629 (29.2%) were on insulin. Patients with versus without DM were older (mean age: 70.0 vs. 64.7years; P<0.001), with more comorbidities and more severe coronary artery disease. Early AHF (pulmonary oedema or cardiogenic shock) was the most frequent in-hospital complication (12.5%) and was twice as frequent in patients with versus without DM (20.2% vs. 9.6%; adjusted odds ratio: 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-1.94; P<0.001). Among in-hospital survivors, patients with DM without AHF and those with AHF without DM had 50% increases in 5-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.32-1.69 and aHR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.23-1.74; both P<0.001) versus patients without DM or AHF; with the risk among those with DM and AHF being doubled (aHR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.66-2.34; P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Early AHF is the most frequent complication of AMI and is twice as common in patients with versus without DM. After adjustment, early AHF and DM are associated with reduced 5-year survival with synergistic effects in patients with both conditions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00673036 and NCT01237418).

Five-year clinical outcomes using the bioresorbable vascular scaffold: Insights from the FRANCE ABSORB registry.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials comparing the first-generation absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) with a drug-eluting stent showed a moderate but significant increase in the rate of 3-year major adverse cardiac events and scaffold thrombosis, followed by a decrease in adverse events after 3 years. AIM: The objective of this study was to assess the 5-year outcomes of patients treated with at least one absorb BVS and included in the FRANCE ABSORB registry. METHODS: All patients treated in France with an absorb BVS were prospectively included in a large nationwide multicentre registry. The primary efficacy outcome was the occurrence of 5-year major adverse cardiac events. Secondary efficacy outcomes were the rates of 5-year target vessel revascularization and definite/probable scaffold thrombosis. RESULTS: Between September 2014 and April 2016, 2,070 patients were included in 86 centres (mean age 55±11 years; 80% men; 49% with acute coronary syndrome). The rates of 1-, 3- and 5-year major adverse cardiac events were 3.9%, 9.4% and 12.1%, respectively (including cardiac death in 2.5% and target vessel revascularization in 10.4%). By multivariable analysis, diabetes, oral anticoagulation, the use of multiple Absorb BVSs and the use of a 2.5mm diameter absorb BVS were associated with 5-year major adverse cardiac events. The rates of 1-, 3- and 5-year definite/probable scaffold thrombosis were 1.5%, 3.1% and 3.6%, respectively. By multivariable analysis, older age, diabetes, anticoagulation at discharge and the use of a 2.5mm diameter absorb BVS were associated with 5-year scaffold thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Absorb BVS implantation was associated with low rates of 1-year major adverse cardiac events, which increased significantly at 3-year follow-up. There was a clear decrease in the rates of scaffold thrombosis and major adverse cardiac events after 3 years.

Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence that fractional flow reserve (FFR) is effective in guiding therapeutic strategy in multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) beyond prespecified percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary graft surgery candidates. OBJECTIVES: The FUTURE (FUnctional Testing Underlying coronary REvascularization) trial aimed to evaluate whether a treatment strategy based on FFR was superior to a traditional strategy without FFR in the treatment of multivessel CAD. METHODS: The FUTURE trial is a prospective, randomized, open-label superiority trial. Multivessel CAD candidates were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment strategy based on FFR in all stenotic (≥50%) coronary arteries or to a traditional strategy without FFR. In the FFR group, revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or surgery) was indicated for FFR ≤0.80 lesions. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. RESULTS: The trial was stopped prematurely by the data safety and monitoring board after a safety analysis and 927 patients were enrolled. At 1-year follow-up, by intention to treat, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events rates between groups (14.6% in the FFR group vs 14.4% in the control group; hazard ratio: 0.97; 95% confidence interval: 0.69-1.36; P = 0.85). The difference in all-cause mortality was nonsignificant, 3.7% in the FFR group versus 1.5% in the control group (hazard ratio: 2.34; 95% confidence interval: 0.97-5.18; P = 0.06), and this was confirmed with a 24 months' extended follow-up. FFR significantly reduced the proportion of revascularized patients, with more patients referred to exclusively medical treatment (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multivessel CAD, we did not find evidence that an FFR-guided treatment strategy reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death at 1-year follow-up. (Functional Testing Underlying Coronary Revascularisation; NCT01881555).

Impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and dyspnoea on clinical outcomes in ticagrelor treated patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial.

AIMS: To evaluate long-term safety and efficacy of ticagrelor monotherapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in relation to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at baseline and the occurrence of dyspnoea reported as adverse event (AE) that may lead to treatment non-adherence. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a non-prespecified, post hoc analysis of the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial (n = 15 991), comparing the experimental strategy of 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after PCI with the reference strategy of 12-month DAPT followed by 12-month aspirin monotherapy. Impact of COPD and dyspnoea AE (as a time-dependent covariate) on clinical outcomes was evaluated up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was a 2-year all-cause mortality or non-fatal, centrally adjudicated, new Q-wave myocardial infarction. The presence of COPD (n = 832) was the strongest clinical predictor of 2-year all-cause mortality after PCI [hazard ratio (HR) 2.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.21-3.66; P adjusted = 0.001] in this cohort (n = 15 991). No differential treatment effects on 2-year clinical outcomes were found in patients with and without COPD (primary endpoint: HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.58-1.35; P = 0.562; P int = 0.952). Overall, at 2 years dyspnoea was reported as an AE in 2101 patients, more frequently among COPD patients, irrespective of treatment allocation (27.2% in experimental arm vs. 14.5% in reference arm, P = 0.001). Its occurrence was not associated with a higher rate of the primary endpoint (P adjusted = 0.640) in the experimental vs. the reference arm. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory analysis, COPD negatively impacted long-term prognosis after PCI. Despite higher incidence of dyspnoea in the experimental arm, in particular among COPD patients, the safety of the experimental treatment strategy appeared not to be affected. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: NCT01813435.

EFFICACY OF AN ADDITIONAL MOBILE LEADED SHIELD ON OPERATOR RADIATION DURING PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY.

Operator radiation protection during percutaneous coronary angiography (CA) is a growing concern in the catheterisation laboratory (cath lab). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an additional mobile leaded shield on operator radiation exposure during diagnostic CA. The study involved two operators from the same cath lab and patients scheduled for diagnostic coronary catheterisation over a period of 2 months. Procedures were performed with standard radiation equipment during the first month. An additional mobile lead shield was added during the second month. Radiation exposure was measured by three dosimeters positioned on the operator's left hand, on their chest under the lead apron and on lead glasses. The intra-operator results were compared. Ninety-nine per cent of the procedures were carried out by radial access. For Operators 1 and 2, the mobile shield, respectively, decreased the radiation dose to the eyes by 43 and 33 % and to the hands by 61 and 83 %. Thorax dose was less than the minimum measurable dose (<0.01 mSv) for each operator. There was no significant difference in total procedure duration, fluoroscopy time or contrast dose required between the two groups of patients. Improved operator radiation protection is an important issue in the face of increased occupational doses. Mobile leaded shield, combined with standard preventive measures, seems to be an effective additional option to reduce the radiation exposure during diagnostic CA.