Coronary revascularization for heart failure with coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

AIMS: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common cause of heart failure (HF). Whether coronary revascularization improves outcomes in patients with HF receiving guideline-recommended pharmacological therapy (GRPT) remains uncertain; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched in public databases for RCTs published between 1 January 2001 and 22 November 2022, investigating the effects of coronary revascularization on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic HF due to CAD. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. We included five RCTs that enrolled, altogether, 2842 patients (most aged <65 years; 85% men; 67% with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%). Overall, compared to medical therapy alone, coronary revascularization was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.99; p = 0.0278) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.93; p = 0.0024) but not the composite of hospitalization for HF or all-cause mortality (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74-1.01; p = 0.0728). There were insufficient data to show whether the effects of coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention were similar or differed. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with chronic HF and CAD enrolled in RCTs, the effect of coronary revascularization on all-cause mortality was statistically significant but neither substantial (HR 0.88) nor robust (upper 95% CI close to 1.0). RCTs were not blinded, which may bias reporting of the cause-specific reasons for hospitalization and mortality. Further trials are required to determine which patients with HF and CAD obtain a substantial benefit from coronary revascularization by either coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention.

Adenosine as adjunctive therapy in acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: Adenosine has been tested in several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to minimize the incidence of coronary microvascular obstruction (CMVO). The aim of this study was to pool all the RCTs comparing intracoronary or intravenous adenosine versus placebo in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing myocardial revascularization. METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed and Scopus electronic databases were scanned for eligible studies up to 5th June 2022. A total of 26 RCTs with 5843 patients were included. Efficacy endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Atrioventricular blocks and ventricular fibrillation/sustained ventricular tachycardia (VF/SVT) were the safety endpoints. Myocardial blush grade, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), infarct size, and ST-segment resolution were also assessed. Adenosine administration was not associated with any clinical benefit in terms of MACE, all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and heart failure. However, adenosine was associated with an increased rate of advanced atrioventricular blocks and of VF/SVT in studies with total mean ischaemic time >3 h, compared to placebo. Remarkably, among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, adenosine was associated with reduced myocardial blush grade 0-1 and TIMI flow grade 0-2, compared to placebo. Furthermore, adenosine did not show favourable effects on LVEF and infarct size. CONCLUSION: Adenosine infusion, as adjunctive therapy in ACS, was associated with an increased risk of advanced atrioventricular blocks and increased rates of adenosine-triggered ventricular arrhythmias in patients with long ischaemic time, without providing any clinical benefit compared to placebo.

A 3-Year Single Center Experience With Left Atrial Pressure Remote Monitoring: The Long and Winding Road.

Background: Despite continuous advancement in the field, heart failure (HF) remains the leading cause of hospitalization among the elderly and the overall first cause of hospital readmission in developed countries. Implantable hemodynamic monitoring is being tested to anticipate the clinical exacerbation onset, potentially preventing an emergent acute decompensation. To date, only pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) sensor received the approval to be implanted in symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction. However, PAP's indirect estimation of left ventricular filling pressure can be inaccurate in some contexts. Methods: The VECTOR-HF study (NCT03775161) is examining the safety, usability and performance of the V-LAP system, a latest-generation device capable of continuously monitoring left atrial pressure (LAP). In our center, five advanced HF patients have been enrolled. After confirmation of the transmitted data reliability, LAP trends and waveforms have guided therapy optimization. The aim of this work is to share clinical insights from our center preliminary experience with V-LAP application. Results: Over a median follow-up time of 18 months, LAP-based therapy optimization managed to reduce intracardiac pressure over time and no hospital readmission occurred. This result was paralleled by an improvement in both functional capacity (6MWT distance 352.5 ± 86.2 meters at baseline to 441.2 ± 125.2 meters at last follow-up) and quality of life indicators (KCCQ overall score 63.82 ± 16.36 vs. 81.92 ± 9.63; clinical score 68.47 ± 19.48 vs. 83.70 ± 15.58). Conclusion: Preliminary evidence from V-LAP application at our institution support a promising efficacy. However, further study is needed to confirm the technical reliability of the device and to exploit the clinical benefit of left-sided hemodynamic remote monitoring.