Platelet-fibrin clot strength and platelet reactivity predicting cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Platelet-fibrin clot strength (PFCS) is linked to major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) risk. However, the association between PFCS and platelet reactivity and their prognostic implication remains uncertain in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: In PCI-treated patients (n = 2512) from registry data from January 2010 to November 2018 in South Korea, PFCS using thromboelastography and platelet reactivity using VerifyNow were measured. High PFCS (PFCSHigh) was defined as thromboelastography maximal amplitude ≥ 68 mm, and high platelet reactivity (HPR) was defined as >208 P2Y12 reaction units. Patients were stratified into four groups according to maximal amplitude and P2Y12 reaction unit levels: (i) normal platelet reactivity (NPR)-PFCSNormal (31.8%), (ii) HPR-PFCSNormal (29.0%), (iii) NPR-PFCSHigh (18.1%), and (iv) HPR-PFCSHigh (21.1%). Major adverse cardiovascular event (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and major bleeding were followed up to 4 years. RESULTS: High platelet reactivity and PFCSHigh showed an additive effect for clinical outcomes (log-rank test, P < .001). Individuals with NPR-PFCSNormal, NPR-PFCSHigh, HPR-PFCSNormal, and HPR-PFCSHigh demonstrated MACE incidences of 7.5%, 12.6%, 13.4%, and 19.3%, respectively. The HPR-PFCSHigh group showed significantly higher risks of MACE compared with the NPR-PFCSNormal group [adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) 1.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-2.91; P = .004] and the HPR-PFCSNormal group (HRadj 1.60; 95% CI 1.12-2.27; P = .009). Similar results were observed for all-cause death. Compared with HPR-PFCSNormal phenotype, NPR-PFCSNormal phenotype was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (HRadj 3.12; 95% CI 1.30-7.69; P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: In PCI patients, PFCS and platelet reactivity demonstrated important relationships in predicting clinical prognosis. Their combined assessment may enhance post-PCI risk stratification for personalized antithrombotic therapy.

Inflammation and platelet reactivity during adjunctive colchicine versus aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with potent P2Y12 inhibitor.

Background: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the use of anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine is associated with a reduction of recurrent ischemic events. The mechanisms of such findings are not fully elucidated. Objectives: To investigate the effects of colchicine versus aspirin on inflammation and platelet reactivity in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI. Methods: This observational study compared laboratory measurements in ACS patients receiving single antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor or prasugrel plus colchicine (MACT) (n = 185) versus conventional dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin plus ticagrelor or prasugrel (n = 497). The primary outcome was the frequency of high residual inflammation, defined as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) ≥2 mg/L at 1 month post-PCI. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed for the primary outcome, including multivariable adjustment, propensity-score matching, and inverse-probability weighted methods. Results: One month after PCI, patients treated with MACT had significantly lower levels of hs-CRP compared to those treated with DAPT (0.6 [0.4-1.2] vs. 0.9 [0.6-2.3] mg/L, p < 0.001). The frequency of high residual inflammation was also lower in the MACT group (10.8% vs. 27.2%, p < 0.001) (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.33 [0.20-0.54], p < 0.001). This effect was consistent across sensitivity analyses. There was no difference in platelet reactivity between MACT and DAPT (49.6 ± 49.0 vs. 51.5 ± 66.4 P2Y12 reaction unit [PRU] measured by VerifyNow, p = 0.776). Conclusion: In ACS patients undergoing PCI, MACT was associated with a lower rate of high residual inflammation without increasing platelet reactivity compared to conventional DAPT. Clinical trial registration: NCT04949516 for MACT pilot trial and NCT04650529 for Gyeongsang National University Hospital registry.

Long-acting cilostazol versus isosorbide mononitrate for patients with vasospastic angina: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cilostazol has a vasodilatory function that may be beneficial for patients with vasospastic angina (VSA). We conducted a randomized, open-label, controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting cilostazol and isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) for VSA. METHODS: The study included patients with confirmed VSA between September 2019 and May 2021. Participants were randomly assigned to receive long-acting cilostazol (test group, 200 mg once daily) or conventional ISMN therapy (control group, 20 mg twice daily) for 4 weeks. The clinical efficacy and safety were evaluated using weekly questionnaires. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled in the study (long-acting cilostazol, n  = 20; ISMN, n  = 20). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups. Long acting cilostazol showed better angina symptom control within the first week compared to ISMN [reduction of pain intensity score, 6.0 (4.0-8.0) vs. 4.0 (1.0-5.0), P  = 0.005; frequency of angina symptom, 0 (0-2.0) vs. 2.0 (0-3.0), P  = 0.027, respectively]. The rate of neurological adverse reactions was lower in the cilostazol group than in the ISMN group (headache or dizziness, 40 vs. 85%, P  = 0.009; headache, 30 vs. 70%, P  = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Long-acting cilostazol provided comparable control of angina and fewer adverse neurologic reactions within 4 weeks compared to ISMN. Long-acting cilostazol provides more intensive control of angina within 1 week, suggesting that it may be an initial choice for the treatment of VSA.

Very early vs delayed invasive strategy in high-risk NSTEMI patients without hemodynamic instability: Insight from the KAMIR-NIH.

BACKGROUND: High-risk non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients' optimal timing for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is debated despite the recommendation for early invasive revascularization. This study aimed to compare outcomes of NSTEMI patients without hemodynamic instability undergoing very early invasive strategy (VEIS, ≤ 12 hours) versus delayed invasive strategy (DIS, >12 hours). METHODS: Excluding urgent indications for PCI including initial systolic blood pressure under 90 mmHg, ventricular arrhythmia, or Killip class IV, 4,733 NSTEMI patients were recruited from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health (KAMIR-NIH). Patients were divided into low and high- global registry of acute coronary events risk score risk score (GRS) groups based on 140. Both groups were then categorized into VEIS and DIS. Clinical outcomes, including all-cause death (ACD), cardiac death (CD), recurrent MI, and cerebrovascular accident at 12 months, were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 4,733 NSTEMI patients, 62% had low GRS, and 38% had high GRS. The proportions of VEIS and DIS were 43% vs. 57% in the low GRS group and 47% vs. 53% in the high GRS group. In the low GRS group, VEIS and DIS demonstrated similar outcomes; however, in the high GRS group, VEIS exhibited worse ACD outcomes compared to DIS (HR = 1.46, P = 0.003). The adverse effect of VEIS was consistent with propensity score matched analysis (HR = 1.34, P = 0.042). CONCLUSION: VEIS yielded worse outcomes than DIS in high-risk NSTEMI patients without hemodynamic instability in real-world practice.

Long-term prognostic implications of brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Objective: The long-term clinical effect of arterial stiffness in high-risk disease entities remains unclear. The prognostic implications of brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) were assessed using a real-world registry that included patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: Arterial stiffness was measured using baPWV before discharge. The primary outcome was net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE: a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke), and major bleeding. The outcomes were assessed over a 4-year period. Results: Patients (n = 3,930) were stratified into high- and low-baPWV groups based on a baPWV cut-off of 1891 cm/s determined through time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. baPWV was linearly correlated with 4-year post-PCI clinical events. The high baPWV group had a greater cumulative incidence of NACE, MACCE, and major bleeding. According to multivariable analysis, the high baPWV groups had a significantly greater risk of 4-year NACE (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj]: 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.85; p = 0.004), MACCE (HRadj: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.07-1.83; p = 0.015), and major bleeding (HRadj: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.15-3.25; p = 0.012). Conclusion: In PCI-treated patients, baPWV was significantly associated with long-term clinical outcomes, including ischemic and bleeding events, indicating its value for identifying high-risk phenotypes.

Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Treatment for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Prespecified Analysis of the FRAME-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Complete revascularization by non-infarct-related artery (IRA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction is standard practice to improve patient prognosis. However, it is unclear whether a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided or angiography-guided treatment strategy for non-IRA PCI would be more cost-effective. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prespecified cost-effectiveness analysis of the FRAME-AMI randomized clinical trial, patients were randomly allocated to either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions between August 19, 2016, and December 24, 2020. Patients were aged 19 years or older, had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI and underwent successful primary or urgent PCI, and had at least 1 non-IRA lesion (diameter stenosis >50% in a major epicardial coronary artery or major side branch with a vessel diameter of ≥2.0 mm). Data analysis was performed on August 27, 2023. Intervention: Fractional flow reserve-guided vs angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The model simulated death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Future medical costs and benefits were discounted by 4.5% per year. The main outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of FFR-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. State-transition Markov models were applied to the Korean, US, and European health care systems using medical cost (presented in US dollars), utilities data, and transition probabilities from meta-analysis of previous trials. Results: The FRAME-AMI trial randomized 562 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (11.4) years. Most patients were men (474 [84.3%]). Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI increased QALYs by 0.06 compared with angiography-guided PCI. The total cumulative cost per patient was estimated as $1208 less for FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI. The ICER was -$19 484 and the INB was $3378, indicating that FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed consistent results and the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness in FFR-guided PCI was 97%. When transition probabilities from the pairwise meta-analysis of the FLOWER-MI and FRAME-AMI trials were used, FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI in the Korean, US, and European health care systems, with an INB of $3910, $8557, and $2210, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness with FFR-guided PCI was 85%, 82%, and 31% for the Korean, US, and European health care systems, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that FFR-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions saved medical costs and increased quality of life better than angiography-guided PCI for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI should be considered in determining the treatment strategy for non-IRA stenoses in these patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02715518.

Clinical Value of Single-Projection Angiography-Derived FFR in Noninfarct-Related Artery.

BACKGROUND: The Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (µFR) is an emerging technique that requires only 1 projection of coronary angiography with similar accuracy to quantitative flow ratio (QFR). However, it has not been validated for the evaluation of noninfarct-related artery (non-IRA) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) settings. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of µFR and the safety of deferring non-IRA lesions with µFR >0.80 in the setting of AMI. METHODS: µFR and QFR were analyzed for non-IRA lesions of patients with AMI enrolled in the FRAME-AMI trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non-Infarction Related Artery Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction), consisting of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention groups. The diagnostic accuracy of µFR was compared with QFR and FFR. Patients were classified by the non-IRA µFR value of 0.80 as a cutoff value. The primary outcome was a vessel-oriented composite outcome, a composite of cardiac death, non-IRA-related myocardial infarction, and non-IRA-related repeat revascularization. RESULTS: µFR and QFR analyses were feasible in 443 patients (552 lesions). µFR showed acceptable correlation with FFR (R=0.777; P<0.001), comparable C-index with QFR to predict FFR ≤0.80 (µFR versus QFR: 0.926 versus 0.961, P=0.070), and shorter total analysis time (mean, 32.7 versus 186.9 s; P<0.001). Non-IRA with µFR >0.80 and deferred percutaneous coronary intervention had a significantly lower risk of vessel-oriented composite outcome than non-IRA with performed percutaneous coronary intervention (3.4% versus 10.5%; hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.14-0.99]; P=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multivessel AMI, µFR of non-IRA showed acceptable diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of QFR to predict FFR ≤0.80. Deferred non-IRA with µFR >0.80 showed a lower risk of vessel-oriented composite outcome than revascularized non-IRA. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.

Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty in Patients Undergoing Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Background: There are limited clinical data on drug-coated balloon (DCB)-based percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with drug-eluting stent (DES)-only PCI in patients with complex coronary artery lesions. Objectives: The goal of the current study was to investigate the efficacy of DCB in patients undergoing PCI for complex coronary artery lesions. Methods: From an institutional registry of patients with de novo complex coronary artery lesions, 126 patients treated with DCB-based PCI were compared with 234 propensity score-matched patients treated with DES-only PCI. Complex coronary artery lesions were defined as the presence of at least 1 of the following: bifurcation, chronic total occlusion, unprotected left main disease, long lesion ≥38 mm, multivessel disease, lesion requiring ≥3 devices, or severe calcification. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. DCB-based PCI showed a comparable risk of TVF vs DES-based PCI (7.6% vs 8.1%; HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.33-1.99; P = 0.638). The risks of cardiac death (5.0% vs 5.7%; HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.24-2.49), target vessel-related myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 1.3%; HR: 2.65; 95% CI: 0.26-27.06), and target vessel revascularization (3.5% vs 2.0%; HR: 1.30; 95% CI: 0.30-5.67) were also comparable between the 2 groups. Conclusions: DCB-based PCI showed comparable risks of TVF vs those of DES-only PCI in patients with complex coronary artery lesions. DCB might be considered as a suitable alternative device to DES in patients undergoing complex PCI. (Long-term Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Patient Undergoing CABG or PCI; NCT03870815).

Intravascular Imaging and Angiography Guidance in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Among Patients With Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Data are limited regarding the effects of intravascular imaging guidance during complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes. Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided vs angiography-guided complex PCI in patients with or without diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis of a subgroup of patients in RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), an investigator-initiated, open-label multicenter trial, analyzed enrolled patients who underwent complex PCI at 20 sites in Korea from May 2018 through May 2021. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either the intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. Data analyses were performed from June 2023 to April 2024. Interventions: Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed either under the guidance of intravascular imaging or angiography alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Results: Among the 1639 patients included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 65.6 [10.2] years; 1300 males [79.3%]), 617 (37.6%) had diabetes. The incidence of TVF was significantly higher in patients with diabetes than patients without diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.33-2.60; P < .001). Among patients without diabetes, the intravascular imaging-guided PCI group had a significantly lower incidence of TVF compared with the angiography-guided PCI group (4.7% vs 12.2%; HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.25-0.67]; P < .001). Conversely, in patients with diabetes, the risk of TVF was not significantly different between the 2 groups (12.9% vs 12.3%; HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.60-1.57]; P = .90). There was a significant interaction between the use of intravascular imaging and diabetes for the risk of TVF (P for interaction = .02). Among patients with diabetes, only those with good glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c level ≤7.5%) and who achieved stent optimization by intravascular imaging showed a lower risk of future ischemic events (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.82; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a subgroup of patients in the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI trial, intravascular imaging guidance reduced the risk of TVF compared with angiography guidance in patients without diabetes (but not in patients with diabetes) during complex PCI. In patients with diabetes undergoing complex PCI, attention should be paid to stent optimization using intravascular imaging and glycemic control to improve outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03381872.

Impact of Intravascular Imaging-Guided Stent Optimization According to Clinical Presentation in Patients Undergoing Complex PCI.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the beneficial effects of intravascular imaging-guided stent optimization vary by clinical presentation during complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: In this prespecified, stratified subgroup analysis from RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex PCI), we sought to compare the outcomes between intravascular imaging vs angiography guidance according to clinical presentation. METHODS: Patients with complex coronary artery lesions were randomly assigned to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI in a 2:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), which is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Of 1,639 patients, 832 (50.8%) presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and 807 (49.2%) with chronic coronary syndrome. During a median follow-up of 2.1 years (Q1-Q3: 1.4-3.0 years), there was no significant interaction between the treatment effect of intravascular imaging and clinical presentation (P for interaction = 0.19). Among patients with ACS, the incidences of TVF were 10.4% in the intravascular imaging group and 14.6% in the angiography group (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.48-1.15; P = 0.18). Among patients with CCS, the incidences of TVF were 5.0% in the intravascular imaging group and 10.4% in the angiography group (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.27-0.80; P = 0.006). Achieving stent optimization by intravascular imaging resulted in a reduced risk of TVF among patients with ACS who were randomly assigned to intravascular imaging-guided PCI for complex coronary lesions (optimized vs unoptimized, 6.5% vs 14.1%; HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27-0.87; P = 0.02) but not those with CCS (5.4% vs 4.7%, HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.53-2.59; P = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: No significant interaction was observed between the benefits of intravascular imaging and clinical presentation in the risk of TVF. Stent optimization by intravascular imaging was particularly important for ACS patients. (Intravascular Imaging- Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention For Complex Coronary Artery Disease [RENOVATE]; NCT03381872).

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Optimization of Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention by Sex: A Subgroup Analysis of the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI Trial.

Importance: There have been heterogeneous results related to sex differences in prognosis after percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI) for complex coronary artery lesions. Objective: To evaluate potential differences in outcomes with intravascular imaging-guided PCI of complex coronary artery lesions between women and men. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified substudy evaluates the interaction of sex in the investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI randomized clinical trial, which demonstrated the superiority of intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with complex coronary artery lesions. The trial was conducted at 20 sites in Korea. Patients with complex coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI were enrolled between May 2018 and May 2021, and the median (IQR) follow-up period was 2.1 (1.4-3.0) years. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to December 2023. Interventions: After diagnostic coronary angiography, eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. The choice and timing of the intravascular imaging device were left to the operators' discretion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was target vessel failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Secondary end points included individual components of the primary end point. Results: Of 1639 included patients, 339 (20.7%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 65.6 (10.2) years. There was no difference in the risk of the primary end point between women and men (9.4% vs 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.89-2.18; P = .15). Intravascular imaging-guided PCI tended to have lower incidence of the primary end point than angiography-guided PCI in both women (5.2% vs 14.5%; adjusted HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.78; P = .01) and men (8.3% vs 11.7%; adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49-1.05; P = .09) without significant interaction (P for interaction = .86). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients undergoing complex PCI, compared with angiographic guidance, intravascular imaging guidance was associated with similar reduction in the risk of target vessel failure among women and men. The treatment benefit of intravascular imaging-guided PCI showed no significant interaction between treatment strategy and sex. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03381872.