Complex percutaneous coronary intervention in patients unable to undergo coronary artery bypass grafting during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from the UK-ReVasc Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac surgery for coronary artery disease was dramatically reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many patients with disease ordinarily treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) instead underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to describe 12-month outcomes following PCI in patients who would typically have undergone CABG. METHODS: Between March 1 and July 31, 2020, patients who received revascularization with PCI when CABG would have been the primary choice of revascularization were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter UK-ReVasc Registry. We evaluated the following major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months: all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, major bleeding, and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 215 patients were enrolled across 45 PCI centers in the United Kingdom. Twelve-month follow up data were obtained for 97% of the cases. There were 9 deaths (4.3%), 5 myocardial infarctions (2.4%), 12 repeat revascularizations (5.7%), 1 stroke (0.5%), 3 major bleeds (1.4%), and no cases of stent thrombosis. No difference in the primary endpoint was observed between patients who received complete vs incomplete revascularization (residual SYNTAX score £ 8 vs > 8) (P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with patterns of coronary disease in whom CABG would have been the primary therapeutic choice outside of the pandemic, PCI was associated with acceptable outcomes at 12 months of follow-up. Contemporary randomized trials that compare PCI to CABG in such patient cohorts may be warranted.

Angina After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Patient and Procedural Predictors.

BACKGROUND: Twenty percent to 40% of patients are affected by angina after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), which is associated with anxiety, depression, impaired physical function, and reduced quality of life. Understanding patient and procedural factors associated with post-PCI angina may inform alternative approaches to treatment. METHODS: Two hundred thirty patients undergoing PCI completed the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7) and European quality of life-5 dimension-5 level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires at baseline and 3 months post-PCI. Patients received blinded intracoronary physiology assessments before and after stenting. A post hoc analysis was performed to compare clinical and procedural characteristics among patients with and without post-PCI angina (defined by follow-up SAQ-angina frequency score <100). RESULTS: Eighty-eight of 230 patients (38.3%) reported angina 3 months post-PCI and had a higher incidence of active smoking, atrial fibrillation, and history of previous myocardial infarction or PCI. Compared with patients with no angina at follow-up, they had lower baseline SAQ summary scores (69.48±24.12 versus 50.20±22.59, P<0.001) and EQ-5D-5L health index scores (0.84±0.15 versus 0.69±0.22, P<0.001). Pre-PCI fractional flow reserve (FFR) was lower among patients who had no post-PCI angina (0.56±0.15 versus 0.62±0.13, P=0.003). Percentage change in FFR after PCI had a moderate correlation with angina frequency score at follow-up (r=0.36, P<0.0001). Patients with post-PCI angina had less improvement in FFR (43.1±33.5% versus 67.0±50.7%, P<0.001). There were no between-group differences in post-PCI FFR, coronary flow reserve, or corrected index of microcirculatory resistance. Patients with post-PCI angina had lower SAQ-summary scores (64.01±22 versus 95.16±8.72, P≤0.001) and EQ-5D-5L index scores (0.69±0.26 versus 0.91±0.17, P≤0.001) at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Larger improvements in FFR following PCI were associated with less angina and better quality of life at follow-up. In patients with stable symptoms, intracoronary physiology assessment can inform expectations of angina relief and quality of life improvement after stenting and thereby help to determine the appropriateness of PCI. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03259815.

Coronary Artery Perforations: Glasgow Natural History Study of Covered Stent Coronary Interventions (GNOCCI) Study.

Background The objective of the GNOCCI (Glasgow Natural History Study of Covered Stent Coronary Interventions) Study was to report the incidence and outcomes of coronary artery perforations over an 18-year period at a single, high-volume percutaneous coronary intervention center. We considered both the temporal trends and long-term outcomes of covered stent deployment. Methods and Results We evaluated procedural and long-term clinical outcomes following coronary perforation in a cohort of 43,343 consecutive percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. Procedural major adverse cardiac events were defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, target vessel revascularization, or cardiac surgery within 24 hours. A total of 161 (0.37%) procedures were complicated by coronary perforation of which 57 (35%) were Ellis grade III. Incidence increased with time over the study period (r=0.73; P<0.001). Perforation severity was linearly associated with procedural mortality (median 2.9-year follow-up): Ellis I (0%), Ellis II (1.7%), Ellis III/IIIB (21%), P<0.001. Procedural major adverse cardiac events occurred in 47% of patients with Ellis III/IIIB versus 13.5% of those with Ellis I/II perforations (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 2.7-12.5; P<0.001). Covered stents were associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis at 2.9-year follow-up (Academic Research Consortium definite or probable; 9.1% versus 0.9%; risk ratio, 10.5; 95% CI, 1.1-97; P=0.04). Conclusions The incidence of coronary perforation increased between 2001 and 2019. Severe perforation was associated with higher procedural major adverse cardiac events and was an independent predictor of long-term mortality. Although covered stents are a potentially lifesaving treatment, the generation of devices used during the study period was limited by their efficacy and high risk of stent thrombosis. Registration Information Clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT03862352.

Outcomes following PCI in CABG candidates during the COVID-19 pandemic: The prospective multicentre UK-ReVasc registry.

OBJECTIVES: To describe outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients who would usually have undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, cardiac surgery for coronary artery disease (CAD) was dramatically reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many patients with "surgical disease" instead underwent PCI. METHODS: Between 1 March 2020 and 31 July 2020, 215 patients with recognized "surgical" CAD who underwent PCI were enrolled in the prospective UK-ReVasc Registry (ReVR). 30-day major cardiovascular event outcomes were collected. Findings in ReVR patients were directly compared to reference PCI and isolated CABG pre-COVID-19 data from British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) and National Cardiac Audit Programme (NCAP) databases. RESULTS: ReVR patients had higher incidence of diabetes (34.4% vs 26.4%, P = .008), multi-vessel disease with left main stem disease (51.4% vs 3.0%, P < .001) and left anterior descending artery involvement (94.8% vs 67.2%, P < .001) compared to BCIS data. SYNTAX Score in ReVR was high (mean 28.0). Increased use of transradial access (93.3% vs 88.6%, P = .03), intracoronary imaging (43.6% vs 14.4%, P < .001) and calcium modification (23.6% vs 3.5%, P < .001) was observed. No difference in in-hospital mortality was demonstrated compared to PCI and CABG data (ReVR 1.4% vs BCIS 0.7%, P = .19; vs NCAP 1.0%, P = .48). Inpatient stay was half compared to CABG (3.0 vs 6.0 days). Low-event rates in ReVR were maintained to 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: PCI undertaken using contemporary techniques produces excellent short-term results in patients who would be otherwise CABG candidates. Longer-term follow-up is essential to determine whether these outcomes are maintained over time.

Invasive versus medically managed acute coronary syndromes with prior bypass (CABG-ACS): insights into the registry versus randomised trial populations.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) patients are under-represented in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) trials. We compared characteristics and outcomes for patients who did and did not participate in a randomised trial of invasive versus non-invasive management (CABG-ACS). METHODS: ACS patients with prior CABG in four hospitals were randomised to invasive or non-invasive management. Non-randomised patients entered a registry. Primary efficacy (composite of all-cause mortality, rehospitalisation for refractory ischaemia/angina, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure) and safety outcomes (composite of bleeding, stroke, procedure-related MI, worsening renal function) were independently adjudicated. RESULTS: Of 217 patients screened, 84 (39%) screenfailed, of whom 24 (29%) did not consent and 60 (71%) were ineligible. Of 133 (61%) eligible, 60 (mean±SD age, 71±9 years, 72% male) entered the trial and 73 (age, 72±10 years, 73% male) entered a registry (preferences: physician (79%), patient (38%), both (21%)).Compared with trial participants, registry patients had more valve disease, lower haemoglobin, worse New York Heart Association class and higher frailty.At baseline, invasive management was performed in 52% and 49% trial and registry patients, respectively, of whom 32% and 36% had percutaneous coronary intervention at baseline, respectively (p=0.800). After 2 years follow-up (694 (median, IQR 558-841) days), primary efficacy (43% trial vs 49% registry (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.89)) and safety outcomes (28% trial vs 22% registry (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.46)) were similar. EuroQol was lower in registry patients at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with trial participants, registry participants had excess morbidity, but longer-term outcomes were similar. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01895751.

Ischemia and No Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease: Prevalence and Correlates of Coronary Vasomotion Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Determine the prevalence and correlates of microvascular and vasospastic angina in patients with symptoms and signs of ischemia but no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA). METHODS: Three hundred ninety-one patients with angina were enrolled at 2 regional centers over 12 months from November 2016 (NCT03193294). INOCA subjects (n=185; 47%) had more limiting dyspnea (New York Heart Association classification III/IV 54% versus 37%; odds ratio [OR], 2.0 [1.3-3.0]; P=0.001) and were more likely to be female (68% INOCA versus 38% in coronary artery disease; OR, 1.9 [1.5 to 2.5]; P<0.001) but with lower cardiovascular risk scores (ASSIGN score median 20% versus 24%; P=0.003). INOCA subjects had similar burden of angina (Seattle Angina Questionnaire) but reduced quality of life compared with coronary artery disease; subjects (EQ5D-5 L index 0.60 versus 0.65 units; P=0.041). RESULTS: An interventional diagnostic procedure with reference invasive tests including coronary flow reserve, microvascular resistance, and vasomotor responses to intracoronary acetylcholine (vasospasm provocation) was performed in 151 INOCA subjects. Overall, 78 (52%) had isolated microvascular angina, 25 (17%) had isolated vasospastic angina, 31 (20%) had both, and 17 (11%) had noncardiac chest pain. Regression analysis showed inducible ischemia on treadmill testing (OR, 7.5 [95% CI, 1.7-33.0]; P=0.008) and typical angina (OR, 2.7 [1.1-6.6]; P=0.032) were independently associated with microvascular angina. Female sex tended to associate with a diagnosis of microvascular angina although this was not significant (OR, 2.7 [0.9-7.9]; P=0.063). Vasospastic angina was associated with smoking (OR, 9.5 [2.8-32.7]; P<0.001) and age (OR, 1.1 per year, [1.0-1.2]; P=0.032]. CONCLUSIONS: Over three quarters of patients with INOCA have identifiable disorders of coronary vasomotion including microvascular and vasospastic angina. These patients have comparable angina burden but reduced quality of life compared to patients with obstructive coronary artery disease. Microvascular angina and vasospastic angina are distinct disorders that may coexist but differ in associated clinical characteristics, symptoms, and angina severity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03193294.

Invasive Versus Medical Management in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery With a Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of routine invasive management in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafts presenting with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes are uncertain because these patients were excluded from pivotal trials. METHODS: In a multicenter trial, non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft were prospectively screened in 4 acute hospitals. Medically stabilized patients were randomized to invasive management (invasive group) or noninvasive management (medical group). The primary outcome was adherence with the randomized strategy by 30 days. A blinded, independent Clinical Event Committee adjudicated predefined composite outcomes for efficacy (all-cause mortality, rehospitalization for refractory ischemia/angina, myocardial infarction, hospitalization because of heart failure) and safety (major bleeding, stroke, procedure-related myocardial infarction, and worsening renal function). RESULTS: Two hundred seventeen patients were screened and 60 (mean±SD age, 71±9 years, 72% male) were randomized (invasive group, n=31; medical group, n=29). One-third (n=10) of the participants in the invasive group initially received percutaneous coronary intervention. In the medical group, 1 participant crossed over to invasive management on day 30 but percutaneous coronary intervention was not performed. During 2-years' follow-up (median [interquartile range], 744 [570-853] days), the composite outcome for efficacy occurred in 13 (42%) subjects in the invasive group and 13 (45%) subjects in the medical group. The composite safety outcome occurred in 8 (26%) subjects in the invasive group and 9 (31%) subjects in the medical group. An efficacy or safety outcome occurred in 17 (55%) subjects in the invasive group and 16 (55%) subjects in the medical group. Health status (EuroQol 5 Dimensions) and angina class in each group were similar at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the population experienced a serious adverse event. An initial noninvasive management strategy is feasible. A substantive health outcomes trial of invasive versus noninvasive management in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafts appears warranted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01895751.

Systemic microvascular dysfunction in microvascular and vasospastic angina.

Aims: Coronary microvascular dysfunction and/or vasospasm are potential causes of ischaemia in patients with no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA). We tested the hypothesis that these patients also have functional abnormalities in peripheral small arteries. Methods and results: Patients were prospectively enrolled and categorised as having microvascular angina (MVA), vasospastic angina (VSA) or normal control based on invasive coronary artery function tests incorporating probes of endothelial and endothelial-independent function (acetylcholine and adenosine). Gluteal biopsies of subcutaneous fat were performed in 81 subjects (62 years, 69% female, 59 MVA, 11 VSA, and 11 controls). Resistance arteries were dissected enabling study using wire myography. Maximum relaxation to ACh (endothelial function) was reduced in MVA vs. controls [median 77.6 vs. 98.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference 2.3-38%; P = 0.0047]. Endothelium-independent relaxation [sodium nitroprusside (SNP)] was similar between all groups. The maximum contractile response to endothelin-1 (ET-1) was greater in MVA (median 121%) vs. controls (100%; 95% CI of median difference 4.7-45%, P = 0.015). Response to the thromboxane agonist, U46619, was also greater in MVA (143%) vs. controls (109%; 95% CI of difference 13-57%, P = 0.003). Patients with VSA had similar abnormal patterns of peripheral vascular reactivity including reduced maximum relaxation to ACh (median 79.0% vs. 98.7%; P = 0.03) and increased response to constrictor agonists including ET-1 (median 125% vs. 100%; P = 0.02). In all groups, resistance arteries were ≈50-fold more sensitive to the constrictor effects of ET-1 compared with U46619. Conclusions: Systemic microvascular abnormalities are common in patients with MVA and VSA. These mechanisms may involve ET-1 and were characterized by endothelial dysfunction and enhanced vasoconstriction. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration is NCT03193294.

Non-invasive versus invasive management in patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery with a non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: study design of the pilot randomised controlled trial and registry (CABG-ACS).

INTRODUCTION: There is an evidence gap about how to best treat patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafts (CABGs) presenting with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) because historically, these patients were excluded from pivotal randomised trials. We aim to undertake a pilot trial of routine non-invasive management versus routine invasive management in patients with NSTE-ACS with prior CABG and optimal medical therapy during routine clinical care. Our trial is a proof-of-concept study for feasibility, safety, potential efficacy and health economic modelling. We hypothesise that a routine invasive approach in patients with NSTE-ACS with prior CABG is not superior to a non-invasive approach with optimal medical therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 60 patients will be enrolled in a randomised clinical trial in 4 hospitals. A screening log will be prospectively completed. Patients not randomised due to lack of eligibility criteria and/or patient or physician preference and who give consent will be included in a registry. We will gather information about screening, enrolment, eligibility, randomisation, patient characteristics and adverse events (including post-discharge). The primary efficacy outcome is the composite of all-cause mortality, rehospitalisation for refractory ischaemia/angina, myocardial infarction and hospitalisation for heart failure. The primary safety outcome is the composite of bleeding, stroke, procedure-related myocardial infarction and worsening renal function. Health status will be assessed using EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) assessed at baseline and 6 monthly intervals, for at least 18 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01895751 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial.

AIM: We assessed the management and outcomes of non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients randomly assigned to fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided management or angiography-guided standard care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a prospective, multicentre, parallel group, 1 : 1 randomized, controlled trial in 350 NSTEMI patients with ≥1 coronary stenosis ≥30% of the lumen diameter assessed visually (threshold for FFR measurement) (NCT01764334). Enrolment took place in six UK hospitals from October 2011 to May 2013. Fractional flow reserve was disclosed to the operator in the FFR-guided group (n = 176). Fractional flow reserve was measured but not disclosed in the angiography-guided group (n = 174). Fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 was an indication for revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). The median (IQR) time from the index episode of myocardial ischaemia to angiography was 3 (2, 5) days. For the primary outcome, the proportion of patients treated initially by medical therapy was higher in the FFR-guided group than in the angiography-guided group [40 (22.7%) vs. 23 (13.2%), difference 95% (95% CI: 1.4%, 17.7%), P = 0.022]. Fractional flow reserve disclosure resulted in a change in treatment between medical therapy, PCI or CABG in 38 (21.6%) patients. At 12 months, revascularization remained lower in the FFR-guided group [79.0 vs. 86.8%, difference 7.8% (-0.2%, 15.8%), P = 0.054]. There were no statistically significant differences in health outcomes and quality of life between the groups. CONCLUSION: In NSTEMI patients, angiography-guided management was associated with higher rates of coronary revascularization compared with FFR-guided management. A larger trial is necessary to assess health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.