The management of non-culprit vessel(s) in patients with unstable angina/non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and chronic kidney dysfunction.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The clinical effects of multivessel interventions in patients with unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI), multivessel disease (MVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) remain uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of intervention in non-culprit lession(s) among this cohort. METHODS: We consecutively included patients diagnosed with UA/NSTEMI, MVD and CKD between January 2008 and December 2018 at our centre. After successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we compared 48-month overall mortality between those undergoing multivessel PCI (MV-PCI) through a single-procedure or staged-procedure approach and culprit vessel-only PCI (CV-PCI) after 1:1 propensity score matching. We conducted stratified analyses and tests for interaction to investigate the modifying effects of critical covariates. Additionally, we recorded the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) to assess the perioperative safety of the two treatment strategies. RESULTS: Of the 749 eligible patients, 271 pairs were successfully matched. Those undergoing MV-PCI had reduced all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR): 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48-0.67). Subgroup analysis showed that those with advanced CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≤ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 ) could not benefit from MV-PCI (P = 0.250), and the survival advantage also tended to diminish in diabetes (P interaction < 0.01; HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.65-1.45). Although the staged-procedure approach (N = 157) failed to bring additional survival benefits compared to single-procedure MV-PCI (N = 290) (P = 0.460), it showed a tendency to decrease the death risk. CIN risks in MV-PCI and CV-PCI groups were not significantly different (risk ratio = 1.60, 95% CI = 0.94-2.73). CONCLUSION: Among patients with UA/NSTEMI and non-diabetic CKD and an eGFR > 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 , MV-PCI was associated with a reduced risk of long-term death but did not increase the incidence of CIN during the management of MVD compared to CV-PCI. And staged procedures might be a preferable option over single-procedure MV-PCI.

Is the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) score a reliable source in a rural hospital for the management of unstable angina/non-ST elevated myocardial infarctions (UA/NSTEMI)?

Background: The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score is considered a method for early risk stratification in patients with unstable angina/non-ST elevated myocardial infarctions (UA/NSTEMI). It is composed of seven factors and if present, each factor contributes a value of one point toward the TIMI risk score, making it a simple tool that does not require differential weights for each factor. A higher score implies a higher likelihood of adverse cardiac events and/or risk of mortality. A TIMI risk score ≥3 recommends early invasive management with cardiac angiography and revascularization. As per CDC study in 2014, Americans living in rural areas are more likely to die from leading causes such as cardiovascular diseases. An estimated number 25,000 deaths than their urban counterparts, which coincide with a TIMI risk score of ≥3, potentially limit the utility of the TIMI risk score in risk stratification in rural catherization laboratories. The objective of this study was to assess the reliability of TIMI score as early risk stratification in patients with unstable angina/non-ST elevated myocardial infarctions (UA/NSTEMI) in rural hospital. Methods: A retrospective chart review study in a rural hospital was conducted for subjects that received left heart catheterizations, exercise stress tests, or chemical stress tests for a diagnosis of UA/NSTEMI. A total of 399 subjects who underwent left heart catheterization and/or stress testing were recruited for this study. A total of 153 subjects who were transferred out to a larger facility, transitioned to comfort care, refused intervention, or passed away were excluded from the study. The 246 remaining subjects were classified into two groups, those with TIMI 0-2 compared with those having TIMI ≥ 3. A null hypothesis was postulated that there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to prevalence of either positive stress test or evidence of obstructive coronary disease following coronary angiography. T-test and Wilcoxon rank-sum analysis were performed through SPSS statistical analysis. Results: Formal statistical analysis using T-test as well as Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two groups showed p = 0.34 for T-test and p = 0.60 for Wilcoxon rank-sum test. This is consistent with the postulated null hypothesis: that there is no significant difference between the two surgery groups with respect to the mean/median TIMI score. Conclusion: There was no statistical difference between high and low TIMI score in the intervention of unstable angina/non-ST elevated myocardial infarctions (UA/NSTEMI) in a rural hospital.