Assessment of Coronary Stenoses for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Evidence regarding the comparative efficacy of the different methods to determine the significance of coronary stenoses in the catheterization laboratory is lacking. We aimed to compare all available methods guiding the decision to perform percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL until October 5, 2023. We included trials that randomized patients with greater than 30% stenoses who were considered for PCI and reported major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 15 trials with 16,333 participants with a mean weighted follow-up of 34 months. The trials contained a median of 49.3% (interquartile range: 32.6%, 100%) acute coronary syndrome participants. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) was associated with a decreased risk of MACE compared with coronary angiography (CA) (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 0.82, high certainty), fractional flow reserve (FFR) (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.92, moderate certainty), and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.82, moderate certainty), and ranked first for MACE (88.1% probability of being the best). FFR (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06, moderate certainty) and iFR (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.28, moderate certainty) likely did not decrease the risk of MACE compared with CA. Intravascular imaging may not be associated with a significant decrease in MACE compared with CA (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.17, low certainty) when used to guide the decision to perform PCI. In conclusion, a decision to perform PCI based on QFR was associated with a decreased risk of MACE compared with CA, FFR, and iFR in a mixed stable coronary disease and acute coronary syndrome population. These hypothesis-generating findings should be validated in large, randomized, head-to-head trials.

Sustainable Resumption of Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Procedures, and the Importance of Testing, During Endemic COVID-19.

PURPOSE: As second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic challenge healthcare in North America and Europe once again, we analyze the impact of the first wave on routine elective cardiovascular care, and the differential COVID risk emerging within our patient groups and staff. PERSPECTIVE: We describe the need to sustainably resume, and temporarily expand, routine elective cardiac services in the face of resurgent COVID-19. Some, but not all, cardiac patient groups are particularly vulnerable to adverse outcomes following COVID-19 infection. We explore mitigation measures at the institutional level to increase resilience within cardiac services to enable them to operate deep into subsequent waves of COVID infection which place unprecedented demands on intensive care infrastructure. As measures to eradicate the virus appear to have failed in many countries, and vaccine roll-out will take many months we take the view that the threat imposed by endemic COVID-19 alters the way elective procedural care should be offered to cardiovascular patients. CONCLUSION: Our patients are at definite risk from their cardiovascular disease, and a return to suspension of proven prognostic interventional treatments on an elective basis - the default for the first wave - must be avoided at all costs.

Meta-Analysis of the Prognostic Impact of Anemia in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Anemia is common in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and current guidelines fail to offer recommendations for its management. This review aims to examine the relation between baseline anemia and mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and major bleeding in patients undergoing PCI. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that evaluated mortality and adverse outcomes in anemic and nonanemic patients who underwent PCI. Data were collected on study design, participant characteristics, definition of anemia, follow-up, and adverse outcomes. Random effects meta-analysis of risk ratios was performed using inverse variance method. A total of 44 studies were included in the review with 230,795 participants. The prevalence of baseline anemia was 26,514 of 170,914 (16%). There was an elevated risk of mortality and MACE with anemia compared with no anemia-pooled risk ratio (RR) 2.39 (2.02 to 2.83), p <0.001 and RR 1.51 (1.34 to 1.71), p <0.001, respectively. The risk of myocardial infarction and bleeding with anemia compared with no anemia was elevated, pooled RR 1.33 (1.07 to 1.65), p = 0.01 and RR 1.97 (1.03 to 3.77), p <0.001, respectively. The risk of mortality per unit incremental decrease in hemoglobin (g/dl) was RR 1.19 (1.09 to 1.30), p <0.001 and the risk of mortality, MACE, and reinfarction per 1 unit incremental decrease in hematocrit (%) was RR 1.07 (1.05 to 1.10), p = 0.04, RR 1.09 (1.08 to 1.10) and RR 1.06 (1.03 to 1.10), respectively. The prevalence of anemia in contemporary cohorts of patients undergoing PCI is significant and is associated with significant increases in postprocedural mortality, MACE, reinfarction, and bleeding. The optimal strategy for the management of anemia in such patients remains uncertain.