Prognostic Value of Preserved Coronary Flow Velocity Reserve by Noninvasive Transthoracic Doppler Echocardiography in Patients With Angiographically Intermediate Left Main Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The potential of angiography to evaluate the hemodynamic severity of a left main coronary artery (LM) stenosis is limited. Noninvasive transthoracic Doppler echocardiographic coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) evaluation of intermediate coronary stenosis has demonstrated remarkably high negative prognostic value. The aim of this study was to assess clinical outcomes in patients with angiographically intermediate LM stenosis and preserved CFVR (>2.0) as evaluated by transthoracic Doppler echocardiographic CFVR. METHODS: The initial study population included 102 patients with intermediate coronary stenosis of the LM referred for transthoracic Doppler echocardiographic CFVR assessment. Peak diastolic CFVR measurements were performed in the distal segment of the left anterior descending coronary artery after intravenous adenosine (140 µg/kg/min), and CFVR was calculated as the ratio between maximal hyperemic and baseline coronary flow velocity. Nineteen patients had impaired CFVR (≤2.0) and were excluded from further analysis, as well as two patients with poor acoustic windows. The final group consisted of 81 patients (mean age, 60 ± 9 years; 76 men) evaluated for adverse cardiac events including death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization. RESULTS: Mean follow-up duration was 62 ± 26 months. Mean CFVR was 2.4 ± 0.4. Total event-free survival was 75 of 81 (92.6%), as six patients were referred for revascularization (five patients with coronary artery bypass grafting, one patient with percutaneous coronary intervention). There were no documented myocardial infarctions or cardiovascular deaths in the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with angiographically intermediate and equivocal LM stenosis and preserved CFVR values of >2.0, revascularization can be safely deferred.

Immediate Versus Delayed Invasive Intervention for Non-STEMI Patients: The RIDDLE-NSTEMI Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the clinical impact of immediate versus delayed invasive intervention in patients with non-ST-segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). BACKGROUND: Previous studies found conflicting results on the effects of earlier invasive intervention in a heterogeneous population of acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. METHODS: We randomized 323 NSTEMI patients to an immediate-intervention group (<2 h after randomization, n = 162) and a delayed-intervention group (2 to 72 h, n = 161).The primary endpoint was the occurrence of death or new myocardial infarction (MI) at 30-day follow-up. RESULTS: Median time from randomization to angiography was 1.4 h and 61.0 h in the immediate-intervention group and the delayed-intervention group, respectively (p < 0.001). At 30 days, the primary endpoint was achieved less frequently in patients undergoing immediate intervention (4.3% vs. 13%, hazard ratio: 0.32, 95% confidence interval: 0.13 to 0.74; p = 0.008). At 1 year, this difference persisted (6.8% in the immediate-intervention group vs. 18.8% in delayed-intervention group; hazard ratio: 0.34, 95% confidence interval: 0.17 to 0.67; p = 0.002). The observed results were mainly attributable to the occurrence of new MI in the pre-catheterization period (0 deaths + 0 MIs in the immediate-intervention group vs. 1 death + 10 MIs in the delayed-intervention group). The rate of deaths, new MI, or recurrent ischemia was lower in the immediate-intervention group at both 30 days (6.8% vs. 26.7%; p < 0.001) and 1 year (15.4% vs. 33.1%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate invasive strategy in NSTEMI patients is associated with lower rates of death or new MI compared with the delayed invasive strategy at early and midterm follow-up, mainly due to a decrease in the risk of new MI in the pre-catheterization period. (Immediate Versus Delayed Invasive Intervention for Non-STEMI Patients [RIDDLE-NSTEMI]; NCT02419833).

Prognostic value of calcium score and coronary flow velocity reserve in asymptomatic diabetic patients.

BACKGROUND: The risk stratification of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major objective for the clinicians, and it can be achieved by coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) or with coronary artery calcium score (CS). CS evaluates underlying coronary atherosclerotic plaque burden and CFVR estimates both presence of coronary artery stenosis and microvascular function. Consequently, CFVR may provide unique risk information beyond the extent of coronary atherosclerosis. AIM: Our aim is to assess joint prognostic value of CFVR and CS in asymptomatic DM patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively included 200 asymptomatic patients (45,5 % male, mean age 57,35 ± 11,25), out of which, there were 101 asymptomatic patients with DM and 99 asymptomatic patients without DM, but with one or more conventionally risk factors for coronary artery disease. We analyzed clinical, biochemical, metabolic, inflammatory parameters, CS by Agatston method, transthoracic Doppler echocardiography CFVR of left anterior descending artery and echocardiographic parameters. RESULTS: Total CS and CS LAD were significantly higher, while mean CFVR was lower in diabetics compared to the nondiabetics. During 1 year follow-up, 24 patients experienced cardio-vascular events (one cardiovascular death, two strokes, three myocardial infarctions, nine new onsets of unstable angina and nine myocardial revascularizations): 19 patients with DM and five non DM patients, (p = 0,003). Overall event free survival was significantly higher in non DM group, compared to the DM group (94,9 % vs. 81,2 %, p = 0,002 respectively), while the patients with CS ≥200 and CFVR <2 had the worst outcome during 1 year follow up in the whole study population as well as in the DM group. At multivariable analysis CFVR on LAD (HR 12.918, 95 % CI 3.865-43.177, p < 0.001) and total CS (HR 13.393, 95 % CI 1.675-107.119, p = 0.014) were independent prognostic predictors of adverse events in DM group of patients. CONCLUSION: Both CS and CFVR provide independent and complementary prognostic information in asymptomatic DM patients. When two parameters are analyzed together, the risk stratification ability improves, even when DM patients are analyzed together with non DM patients. As a result, DM patients with CS ≥200 and CFVR <2 had the worst outcome. Consequently, the use of two tests identified subset of patients who can derive the most benefit from the intensive prevention measures.