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.).

Management and outcome in foreign-born vs native-born patients with myocardial infarction in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies on disparities in healthcare and outcome have shown conflicting results. The aim of this study was to assess differences in baseline characteristics, management, and outcome in myocardial infarction (MI) patients, by country of birth. METHODS: In total, 194 259 MI patients (64% male, 15% foreign-born) from the nationwide SWEDEHEART registry were included and compared by geographic region of birth. The primary outcome was one-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including all-cause death, MI, and stroke. Secondary outcomes were long-term MACE (up to 12 years), the individual components of MACE, 30-day mortality, management, and risk factors. Logistic regression, Cox proportional hazard models and propensity score matching (PSM), accounting for baseline differences, were used. RESULTS: Foreign-born patients were younger, often male, and had a higher cardiovascular (CV) risk factor burden, including smoking, diabetes, and hypertension. In PSM analyses, Asia-born patients had higher likelihood of revascularisation (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.30), statins and betablocker prescription at discharge and a 34% lower risk of 30-day mortality. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were found in the primary outcomes except for Asia-born patients having lower risk of one-year MACE (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-0.98), driven by lower mortality (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57-0.91). The results persisted over long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that in a system with universal healthcare coverage in which acute and secondary preventive treatments do not differ by country of birth, foreign-born patients, despite higher CV risk factor burden, will do at least as well as native-born patients.

Provision of professional interpreters and Heart School attendance for foreign-born compared with native-born myocardial infarction patients in Sweden.

Objective: Interactive patient education, referred to as Heart School (HS), is an important part of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after myocardial infarction (MI), which has been associated with improved outcomes. Little is known about HS attendance among foreign-born patients. The aims were to assess; 1) HS attendance in foreign-born versus native-born patients, 2) the association between the provision of professional interpreters and HS attendance, and 3) secondary prevention goal attainment after MI based on HS attendance. Methods: The provision of professional interpreters during post-MI follow-up was assessed by a questionnaire sent to all 78 Swedish CR sites. Patient-specific data was retrieved from the SWEDEHEART registry. The association between the provision of professional interpreters and HS attendance was estimated with logistic regression models. HS attendance and attainment of secondary prevention goals by country of birth were investigated. Results: In total, 8377 patients < 75 years (78 % male) were included. Foreign-born (19.8 %) had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and were less likely to attend HS (33.7 vs 51.3 %, p < 0.001), adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.59 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.68), compared with native-born patients. CR centers providing professional interpreters had higher HS attendance among foreign-born (adjusted OR 1.55, 95 % CI 1.20-2.01) but not among native-born patients. Attending HS was similarly associated with improved secondary prevention goal attainment in both groups. Conclusions: Despite similar positive association between HS attendance and attainment of secondary prevention goals, foreign-born patients attended HS less often. With the provision of professional interpreters, HS attendance increased in foreign-born patients.