FFR-Guided Complete or Culprit-Only PCI in Patients with Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease remains unclear. METHODS: In this multinational, registry-based, randomized trial, we assigned patients with STEMI or very-high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI) and multivessel disease who were undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion to receive either FFR-guided complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The two key secondary outcomes were a composite of death from any cause or myocardial infarction and unplanned revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 1542 patients underwent randomization, with 764 assigned to receive FFR-guided complete revascularization and 778 assigned to receive culprit-lesion-only PCI. At a median follow-up of 4.8 years (interquartile range, 4.3 to 5.2), a primary-outcome event had occurred in 145 patients (19.0%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 159 patients (20.4%) in the culprit-lesion-only group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.17; P = 0.53). With respect to the secondary outcomes, no apparent between-group differences were observed in the composite of death from any cause or myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.44) or unplanned revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.04). There were no apparent between-group differences in safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI or very-high-risk NSTEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, FFR-guided complete revascularization was not shown to result in a lower risk of a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization than culprit-lesion-only PCI at 4.8 years. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; FULL REVASC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02862119.).

OCT or Angiography Guidance for PCI in Complex Bifurcation Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better clinical outcomes than angiography-guided PCI. Whether routine optical coherence tomography (OCT) guidance in PCI of lesions involving coronary-artery branch points (bifurcations) improves clinical outcomes as compared with angiographic guidance is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial at 38 centers in Europe. Patients with a clinical indication for PCI and a complex bifurcation lesion identified by means of coronary angiography were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to OCT-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as death from a cardiac cause, target-lesion myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization at a median follow-up of 2 years. RESULTS: We assigned 1201 patients to OCT-guided PCI (600 patients) or angiography-guided PCI (601 patients). A total of 111 patients (18.5%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and 116 (19.3%) in the angiography-guided PCI group had a bifurcation lesion involving the left main coronary artery. At 2 years, a primary end-point event had occurred in 59 patients (10.1%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and in 83 patients (14.1%) in the angiography-guided PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.98; P = 0.035). Procedure-related complications occurred in 41 patients (6.8%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and 34 patients (5.7%) in the angiography-guided PCI group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with complex coronary-artery bifurcation lesions, OCT-guided PCI was associated with a lower incidence of MACE at 2 years than angiography-guided PCI. (Funded by Abbott Vascular and others; OCTOBER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03171311.).

Complete or Culprit-Only PCI in Older Patients with Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of complete revascularization in older patients (≥75 years of age) with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease remains unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned older patients with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease who were undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion to receive either physiology-guided complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions or to receive no further revascularization. Functionally significant nonculprit lesions were identified either by pressure wire or angiography. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any revascularization at 1 year. The key secondary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Safety was assessed as a composite of contrast-associated acute kidney injury, stroke, or bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 1445 patients underwent randomization (720 to receive complete revascularization and 725 to receive culprit-only revascularization). The median age of the patients was 80 years (interquartile range, 77 to 84); 528 patients (36.5%) were women, and 509 (35.2%) were admitted for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A primary-outcome event occurred in 113 patients (15.7%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 152 patients (21.0%) in the culprit-only group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.93; P = 0.01). Cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction occurred in 64 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 98 patients (13.5%) in the culprit-only group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88). The safety outcome did not appear to differ between the groups (22.5% vs. 20.4%; P = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who were 75 years of age or older with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, those who underwent physiology-guided complete revascularization had a lower risk of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 1 year than those who received culprit-lesion-only PCI. (Funded by Consorzio Futuro in Ricerca and others; FIRE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03772743.).

Optical Coherence Tomography-Guided versus Angiography-Guided PCI.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding clinical outcomes after optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as compared with angiography-guided PCI are limited. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, single-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with medication-treated diabetes or complex coronary-artery lesions to undergo OCT-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. A final blinded OCT procedure was performed in patients in the angiography group. The two primary efficacy end points were the minimum stent area after PCI as assessed with OCT and target-vessel failure at 2 years, defined as a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: The trial was conducted at 80 sites in 18 countries. A total of 2487 patients underwent randomization: 1233 patients were assigned to undergo OCT-guided PCI, and 1254 to undergo angiography-guided PCI. The minimum stent area after PCI was 5.72±2.04 mm2 in the OCT group and 5.36±1.87 mm2 in the angiography group (mean difference, 0.36 mm2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 to 0.51; P<0.001). Target-vessel failure within 2 years occurred in 88 patients in the OCT group and in 99 patients in the angiography group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 7.4% and 8.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.19; P = 0.45). OCT-related adverse events occurred in 1 patient in the OCT group and in 2 patients in the angiography group. Stent thrombosis within 2 years occurred in 6 patients (0.5%) in the OCT group and in 17 patients (1.4%) in the angiography group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing PCI, OCT guidance resulted in a larger minimum stent area than angiography guidance, but there was no apparent between-group difference in the percentage of patients with target-vessel failure at 2 years. (Funded by Abbott; ILUMIEN IV: OPTIMAL PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03507777.).

A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently performed to reduce the symptoms of stable angina. Whether PCI relieves angina more than a placebo procedure in patients who are not receiving antianginal medication remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of PCI in patients with stable angina. Patients stopped all antianginal medications and underwent a 2-week symptom assessment phase before randomization. Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure and were followed for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the angina symptom score, which was calculated daily on the basis of the number of angina episodes that occurred on a given day, the number of antianginal medications prescribed on that day, and clinical events, including the occurrence of unblinding owing to unacceptable angina or acute coronary syndrome or death. Scores range from 0 to 79, with higher scores indicating worse health status with respect to angina. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients underwent randomization: 151 to the PCI group and 150 to the placebo group. The mean (±SD) age was 64±9 years, and 79% were men. Ischemia was present in one cardiac territory in 242 patients (80%), in two territories in 52 patients (17%), and in three territories in 7 patients (2%). In the target vessels, the median fractional flow reserve was 0.63 (interquartile range, 0.49 to 0.75), and the median instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.78 (interquartile range, 0.55 to 0.87). At the 12-week follow-up, the mean angina symptom score was 2.9 in the PCI group and 5.6 in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.41 to 3.47; P<0.001). One patient in the placebo group had unacceptable angina leading to unblinding. Acute coronary syndromes occurred in 4 patients in the PCI group and in 6 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable angina who were receiving little or no antianginal medication and had objective evidence of ischemia, PCI resulted in a lower angina symptom score than a placebo procedure, indicating a better health status with respect to angina. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and others; ORBITA-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03742050.).

Intravascular Imaging-Guided or Angiography-Guided Complex PCI.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding clinical outcomes after intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex coronary-artery lesions, as compared with outcomes after angiography-guided PCI, are limited. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, open-label trial in South Korea, we randomly assigned patients with complex coronary-artery lesions in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. In the intravascular imaging group, the choice between intravascular ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography was at the operators' discretion. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1639 patients underwent randomization, with 1092 assigned to undergo intravascular imaging-guided PCI and 547 assigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI. At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range, 1.4 to 3.0), a primary end-point event had occurred in 76 patients (cumulative incidence, 7.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 60 patients (cumulative incidence, 12.3%) in the angiography group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.89; P = 0.008). Death from cardiac causes occurred in 16 patients (cumulative incidence, 1.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 17 patients (cumulative incidence, 3.8%) in the angiography group; target-vessel-related myocardial infarction occurred in 38 (cumulative incidence, 3.7%) and 30 (cumulative incidence, 5.6%), respectively; and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization in 32 (cumulative incidence, 3.4%) and 25 (cumulative incidence, 5.5%), respectively. There were no apparent between-group differences in the incidence of procedure-related safety events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with complex coronary-artery lesions, intravascular imaging-guided PCI led to a lower risk of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization than angiography-guided PCI. (Supported by Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific; RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03381872).

Timing of Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel coronary artery disease, the time at which complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions should be performed remains unknown. METHODS: We performed an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial at 37 sites in Europe. Patients in a hemodynamically stable condition who had STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; immediate group) or PCI of the culprit lesion followed by staged multivessel PCI of nonculprit lesions within 19 to 45 days after the index procedure (staged group). The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year after randomization. The percentages of patients with a primary or secondary end-point event are provided as Kaplan-Meier estimates at 6 months and at 1 year. RESULTS: We assigned 418 patients to undergo immediate multivessel PCI and 422 to undergo staged multivessel PCI. A primary end-point event occurred in 35 patients (8.5%) in the immediate group as compared with 68 patients (16.3%) in the staged group (risk ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.72; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P<0.001 for superiority). Nonfatal myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization occurred in 8 patients (2.0%) and 17 patients (4.1%), respectively, in the immediate group and in 22 patients (5.3%) and 39 patients (9.3%), respectively, in the staged group. The risk of death from any cause, the risk of stroke, and the risk of hospitalization for heart failure appeared to be similar in the two groups. A total of 104 patients in the immediate group and 145 patients in the staged group had a serious adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in hemodynamically stable condition with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, immediate multivessel PCI was noninferior to staged multivessel PCI with respect to the risk of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year. (Supported by Boston Scientific; MULTISTARS AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03135275.).

Stopping Aspirin Within 1 Month After Stenting for Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome: The T-PASS Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Stopping aspirin within 1 month after implantation of a drug-eluting stent for ticagrelor monotherapy has not been exclusively evaluated for patients with acute coronary syndrome. The aim of this study was to investigate whether ticagrelor monotherapy after <1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is noninferior to 12 months of ticagrelor-based DAPT for adverse cardiovascular and bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial, 2850 patients with acute coronary syndrome who underwent drug-eluting stent implantation at 24 centers in South Korea were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either ticagrelor monotherapy (90 mg twice daily) after <1 month of DAPT (n=1426) or 12 months of ticagrelor-based DAPT (n=1424) between April 24, 2019, and May 31, 2022. The primary end point was the net clinical benefit as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, stroke, and major bleeding at 1 year after the index procedure in the intention-to-treat population. Key secondary end points were the individual components of the primary end point. RESULTS: Among 2850 patients who were randomized (mean age, 61 years; 40% ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction), 2823 (99.0%) completed the trial. Aspirin was discontinued at a median of 16 days (interquartile range, 12-25 days) in the group receiving ticagrelor monotherapy after <1 month of DAPT. The primary end point occurred in 40 patients (2.8%) in the group receiving ticagrelor monotherapy after <1-month DAPT, and in 73 patients (5.2%) in the ticagrelor-based 12-month DAPT group (hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.37-0.80]; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.002 for superiority). This finding was consistent in the per-protocol population as a sensitivity analysis. The occurrence of major bleeding was significantly lower in the ticagrelor monotherapy after <1-month DAPT group compared with the 12-month DAPT group (1.2% versus 3.4%; hazard ratio, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.20-0.61]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that stopping aspirin within 1 month for ticagrelor monotherapy is both noninferior and superior to 12-month DAPT for the 1-year composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, and major bleeding, primarily because of a significant reduction in major bleeding, among patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving drug-eluting stent implantation. Low event rates, which may suggest enrollment of relatively non-high-risk patients, should be considered in interpreting the trial. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03797651.

Preventive percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy alone for the treatment of vulnerable atherosclerotic coronary plaques (PREVENT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndrome and sudden cardiac death are often caused by rupture and thrombosis of lipid-rich atherosclerotic coronary plaques (known as vulnerable plaques), many of which are non-flow-limiting. The safety and effectiveness of focal preventive therapy with percutaneous coronary intervention of vulnerable plaques in reducing adverse cardiac events are unknown. We aimed to assess whether preventive percutaneous coronary intervention of non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques improves clinical outcomes compared with optimal medical therapy alone. METHODS: PREVENT was a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial done at 15 research hospitals in four countries (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and New Zealand). Patients aged 18 years or older with non-flow-limiting (fractional flow reserve >0·80) vulnerable coronary plaques identified by intracoronary imaging were randomly assigned (1:1) to either percutaneous coronary intervention plus optimal medical therapy or optimal medical therapy alone, in block sizes of 4 or 6, stratified by diabetes status and the performance of percutaneous coronary intervention in a non-study target vessel. Follow-up continued annually in all enrolled patients until the last enrolled patient reached 2 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischaemia-driven target-vessel revascularisation, or hospitalisation for unstable or progressive angina, assessed in the intention-to-treat population at 2 years. Time-to-first-event estimates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared with the log-rank test. This report is the principal analysis from the trial and includes all long-term analysed data. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02316886, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2015, and Sept 29, 2021, 5627 patients were screened for eligibility, 1606 of whom were enrolled and randomly assigned to percutaneous coronary intervention (n=803) or optimal medical therapy alone (n=803). 1177 (73%) patients were men and 429 (27%) were women. 2-year follow-up for the primary outcome assessment was completed in 1556 (97%) patients (percutaneous coronary intervention group n=780; optimal medical therapy group n=776). At 2 years, the primary outcome occurred in three (0·4%) patients in the percutaneous coronary intervention group and in 27 (3·4%) patients in the medical therapy group (absolute difference -3·0 percentage points [95% CI -4·4 to -1·8]; p=0·0003). The effect of preventive percutaneous coronary intervention was directionally consistent for each component of the primary composite outcome. Serious clinical or adverse events did not differ between the percutaneous coronary intervention group and the medical therapy group: at 2 years, four (0·5%) versus ten (1·3%) patients died (absolute difference -0·8 percentage points [95% CI -1·7 to 0·2]) and nine (1·1%) versus 13 (1·7%) patients had myocardial infarction (absolute difference -0·5 percentage points [-1·7 to 0·6]). INTERPRETATION: In patients with non-flow-limiting vulnerable coronary plaques, preventive percutaneous coronary intervention reduced major adverse cardiac events arising from high-risk vulnerable plaques, compared with optimal medical therapy alone. Given that PREVENT is the first large trial to show the potential effect of the focal treatment for vulnerable plaques, these findings support consideration to expand indications for percutaneous coronary intervention to include non-flow-limiting, high-risk vulnerable plaques. FUNDING: The CardioVascular Research Foundation, Abbott, Yuhan Corp, CAH-Cordis, Philips, and Infraredx, a Nipro company.

Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes (IVUS-ACS): a two-stage, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention has been shown to result in superior clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention. However, insufficient data are available concerning the advantages of intravascular ultrasound guidance for patients with an acute coronary syndrome. This trial aimed to investigate whether the use of intravascular ultrasound guidance, as compared with angiography guidance, improves the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents in patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: In this two-stage, multicentre, randomised trial, patients aged 18 years or older and presenting with an acute coronary syndrome at 58 centres in China, Italy, Pakistan, and the UK were randomly assigned to intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention or angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients, follow-up health-care providers, and assessors were masked to random assignment; however, staff in the catheterisation laboratory were not. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularisation at 1 year after randomisation. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03971500, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Aug 20, 2019 and Oct 27, 2022, 3505 patients with an acute coronary syndrome were randomly assigned to intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (n=1753) or angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (n=1752). 1-year follow-up was completed in 3504 (>99·9%) patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 70 patients in the intravascular ultrasound group and 128 patients in the angiography group (Kaplan-Meier rate 4·0% vs 7·3%; hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·41-0·74]; p=0·0001), driven by reductions in target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation. There were no significant differences in all-cause death or stent thrombosis between groups. Safety endpoints were also similar in the two groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, intravascular ultrasound-guided implantation of contemporary drug-eluting stents resulted in a lower 1-year rate of the composite outcome of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven revascularisation compared with angiography guidance alone. FUNDING: The Chinese Society of Cardiology, the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China, and Jiangsu Provincial & Nanjing Municipal Clinical Trial Project. TRANSLATION: For the Mandarin translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Ticagrelor alone versus ticagrelor plus aspirin from month 1 to month 12 after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ULTIMATE-DAPT): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Following percutaneous coronary intervention with stent placement to treat acute coronary syndromes, international clinical guidelines generally recommend dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for 12 months to prevent myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. However, data on single antiplatelet therapy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor earlier than 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with an acute coronary syndrome are scarce. The aim of this trial was to assess whether the use of ticagrelor alone, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, could reduce the incidence of clinically relevant bleeding events without an accompanying increase in major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE). METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, patients aged 18 years or older with an acute coronary syndrome who completed the IVUS-ACS study and who had no major ischaemic or bleeding events after 1-month treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy were randomly assigned to receive oral ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) plus oral aspirin (100 mg once daily) or oral ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) plus a matching oral placebo, beginning 1 month and ending at 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention (11 months in total). Recruitment took place at 58 centres in China, Italy, Pakistan, and the UK. Patients were required to remain event-free for 1 month on dual antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents. Randomisation was done using a web-based system, stratified by acute coronary syndrome type, diabetes, IVUS-ACS randomisation, and site, using dynamic minimisation. The primary superiority endpoint was clinically relevant bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [known as BARC] types 2, 3, or 5). The primary non-inferiority endpoint was MACCE (defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or clinically driven target vessel revascularisation), with an expected event rate of 6·2% in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group and an absolute non-inferiority margin of 2·5 percentage points between 1 month and 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention. The two co-primary endpoints were tested sequentially; the primary superiority endpoint had to be met for hypothesis testing of the MACCE outcome to proceed. All principal analyses were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03971500, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 21, 2019, and Oct 27, 2022, 3400 (97·0%) of the 3505 participants in the IVUS-ACS study were randomly assigned (1700 patients to ticagrelor plus aspirin and 1700 patients to ticagrelor plus placebo). 12-month follow-up was completed by 3399 (>99·9%) patients. Between month 1 and month 12 after percutaneous coronary intervention, clinically relevant bleeding occurred in 35 patients (2·1%) in the ticagrelor plus placebo group and in 78 patients (4·6%) in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·45 [95% CI 0·30 to 0·66]; p<0·0001). MACCE occurred in 61 patients (3·6%) in the ticagrelor plus placebo group and in 63 patients (3·7%) in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group (absolute difference -0·1% [95% CI -1·4% to 1·2%]; HR 0·98 [95% CI 0·69 to 1·39]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001, psuperiority=0·89). INTERPRETATION: In patients with an acute coronary syndrome who had percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents and remained event-free for 1 month on dual antiplatelet therapy, treatment with ticagrelor alone between month 1 and month 12 after the intervention resulted in a lower rate of clinically relevant bleeding and a similar rate of MACCE compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. Along with the results from previous studies, these findings show that most patients in this population can benefit from superior clinical outcomes with aspirin discontinuation and maintenance on ticagrelor monotherapy after 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. FUNDING: The Chinese Society of Cardiology, the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China, and the Jiangsu Provincial & Nanjing Municipal Clinical Trial Project. TRANSLATION: For the Mandarin translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided PCI as Compared with Coronary Bypass Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease have been found to have better outcomes with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) than with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but studies in which PCI is guided by measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) have been lacking. METHODS: In this multicenter, international, noninferiority trial, patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo CABG or FFR-guided PCI with current-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary end point was the occurrence within 1 year of a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event, defined as death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization. Noninferiority of FFR-guided PCI to CABG was prespecified as an upper boundary of less than 1.65 for the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. Secondary end points included a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1500 patients underwent randomization at 48 centers. Patients assigned to undergo PCI received a mean (±SD) of 3.7±1.9 stents, and those assigned to undergo CABG received 3.4±1.0 distal anastomoses. The 1-year incidence of the composite primary end point was 10.6% among patients randomly assigned to undergo FFR-guided PCI and 6.9% among those assigned to undergo CABG (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 2.2), findings that were not consistent with noninferiority of FFR-guided PCI (P = 0.35 for noninferiority). The incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was 7.3% in the FFR-guided PCI group and 5.2% in the CABG group (hazard ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.1). The incidences of major bleeding, arrhythmia, and acute kidney injury were higher in the CABG group than in the FFR-guided PCI group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease, FFR-guided PCI was not found to be noninferior to CABG with respect to the incidence of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization at 1 year. (Funded by Medtronic and Abbott Vascular; FAME 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02100722.).

Routine Functional Testing or Standard Care in High-Risk Patients after PCI.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data from randomized trials to guide a specific follow-up surveillance approach after myocardial revascularization. Whether a follow-up strategy that includes routine functional testing improves clinical outcomes among high-risk patients who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1706 patients with high-risk anatomical or clinical characteristics who had undergone PCI to a follow-up strategy of routine functional testing (nuclear stress testing, exercise electrocardiography, or stress echocardiography) at 1 year after PCI or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina at 2 years. Key secondary outcomes included invasive coronary angiography and repeat revascularization. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 64.7 years, 21.0% had left main disease, 43.5% had bifurcation disease, 69.8% had multivessel disease, 70.1% had diffuse long lesions, 38.7% had diabetes, and 96.4% had been treated with drug-eluting stents. At 2 years, a primary-outcome event had occurred in 46 of 849 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 5.5%) in the functional-testing group and in 51 of 857 (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 6.0%) in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 1.35; P = 0.62). There were no between-group differences with respect to the components of the primary outcome. At 2 years, 12.3% of the patients in the functional-testing group and 9.3% in the standard-care group had undergone invasive coronary angiography (difference, 2.99 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.01 to 5.99), and 8.1% and 5.8% of patients, respectively, had undergone repeat revascularization (difference, 2.23 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.22 to 4.68). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk patients who had undergone PCI, a follow-up strategy of routine functional testing, as compared with standard care alone, did not improve clinical outcomes at 2 years. (Funded by the CardioVascular Research Foundation and Daewoong Pharmaceutical; POST-PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03217877.).

Fractional Flow Reserve or Intravascular Ultrasonography to Guide PCI.

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronary artery disease who are being evaluated for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), procedures can be guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) for decision making regarding revascularization and stent implantation. However, the differences in clinical outcomes when only one method is used for both purposes are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1682 patients who were being evaluated for PCI for the treatment of intermediate stenosis (40 to 70% occlusion by visual estimation on coronary angiography) in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either an FFR-guided or IVUS-guided procedure. FFR or IVUS was to be used to determine whether to perform PCI and to assess PCI success. In the FFR group, PCI was to be performed if the FFR was 0.80 or less. In the IVUS group, the criteria for PCI were a minimal lumen area measuring either 3 mm2 or less or measuring 3 to 4 mm2 with a plaque burden of more than 70%. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months after randomization. We tested the noninferiority of the FFR group as compared with the IVUS group (noninferiority margin, 2.5 percentage points). RESULTS: The frequency of PCI was 44.4% among patients in the FFR group and 65.3% among those in the IVUS group. At 24 months, a primary-outcome event had occurred in 8.1% of the patients in the FFR group and in 8.5% of those in the IVUS group (absolute difference, -0.4 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval, 2.2 percentage points; P = 0.01 for noninferiority). Patient-reported outcomes as reported on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate stenosis who were being evaluated for PCI, FFR guidance was noninferior to IVUS guidance with respect to the composite primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. (Funded by Boston Scientific; FLAVOUR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02673424.).

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes with previous coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis of invasive vs. conservative management.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A routine invasive strategy is recommended in the management of higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs). However, patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery were excluded from key trials that informed these guidelines. Thus, the benefit of a routine invasive strategy is less certain in this specific subgroup. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. A comprehensive search was performed of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible studies were RCTs of routine invasive vs. a conservative or selective invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS that included patients with previous CABG. Summary data were collected from the authors of each trial if not previously published. Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and cardiac-related hospitalization. Using a random-effects model, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Summary data were obtained from 11 RCTs, including previously unpublished subgroup outcomes of nine trials, comprising 897 patients with previous CABG (477 routine invasive, 420 conservative/selective invasive) followed up for a weighted mean of 2.0 (range 0.5-10) years. A routine invasive strategy did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.29), cardiac mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.70-1.58), myocardial infarction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65-1.23), or cardiac-related hospitalization (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis assessing the effect of a routine invasive strategy in patients with prior CABG who present with NSTE-ACS. The results confirm the under-representation of this patient group in RCTs of invasive management in NSTE-ACS and suggest that there is no benefit to a routine invasive strategy compared to a conservative approach with regard to major adverse cardiac events. These findings should be validated in an adequately powered RCT.

Merging machine learning and patient preference: a novel tool for risk prediction of percutaneous coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Predicting personalized risk for adverse events following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains critical in weighing treatment options, employing risk mitigation strategies, and enhancing shared decision-making. This study aimed to employ machine learning models using pre-procedural variables to accurately predict common post-PCI complications. METHODS: A group of 66 adults underwent a semiquantitative survey assessing a preferred list of outcomes and model display. The machine learning cohort included 107 793 patients undergoing PCI procedures performed at 48 hospitals in Michigan between 1 April 2018 and 31 December 2021 in the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) registry separated into training and validation cohorts. External validation was conducted in the Cardiac Care Outcomes Assessment Program database of 56 583 procedures in 33 hospitals in Washington. RESULTS: Overall rate of in-hospital mortality was 1.85% (n = 1999), acute kidney injury 2.51% (n = 2519), new-onset dialysis 0.44% (n = 462), stroke 0.41% (n = 447), major bleeding 0.89% (n = 942), and transfusion 2.41% (n = 2592). The model demonstrated robust discrimination and calibration for mortality {area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 0.930 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.920-0.940]}, acute kidney injury [AUC: 0.893 (95% CI 0.883-0.903)], dialysis [AUC: 0.951 (95% CI 0.939-0.964)], stroke [AUC: 0.751 (95%CI 0.714-0.787)], transfusion [AUC: 0.917 (95% CI 0.907-0.925)], and major bleeding [AUC: 0.887 (95% CI 0.870-0.905)]. Similar discrimination was noted in the external validation population. Survey subjects preferred a comprehensive list of individually reported post-procedure outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Using common pre-procedural risk factors, the BMC2 machine learning models accurately predict post-PCI outcomes. Utilizing patient feedback, the BMC2 models employ a patient-centred tool to clearly display risks to patients and providers (https://shiny.bmc2.org/pci-prediction/). Enhanced risk prediction prior to PCI could help inform treatment selection and shared decision-making discussions.

Aspirin-free antiplatelet strategies after percutaneous coronary interventions.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitor is the standard antithrombotic treatment after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Several trials have challenged guideline-recommended DAPT after PCI by testing the relative clinical effect of an aspirin-free antiplatelet approach-consisting of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course (mostly 1-3 months) of DAPT-among patients undergoing PCI without a concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). Overall, these studies have shown P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short DAPT to be associated with a significant reduction in the risk of bleeding without an increase in thrombotic or ischaemic events compared with continued DAPT. Moreover, the effects of the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy without prior DAPT or following a very short course of DAPT after PCI are being investigated in emerging studies, of which one has recently reported unfavourable efficacy results associated with the aspirin-free approach compared with conventional DAPT. Finally, P2Y12 inhibitor alone has been compared with aspirin alone as chronic therapy after DAPT discontinuation, thus challenging the historical role of aspirin as a standard of care for secondary prevention following PCI. A thorough understanding of study designs, populations, treatments, results, and limitations of trials testing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs. DAPT or vs. aspirin is required to consider adopting this treatment in clinical practice. This review addresses the use of aspirin-free antiplatelet strategies among patients undergoing PCI without a concomitant indication for OAC, providing an overview of clinical evidence, guideline indications, practical implications, ongoing issues, and future perspectives.

Optical Coherence Tomography-Guided or Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The OCTIVUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed superior clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided PCI. However, the comparative effectiveness of OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI regarding clinical outcomes is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, open-label, pragmatic trial, we randomly assigned 2008 patients with significant coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either an OCT-guided or IVUS-guided PCI. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year, which was powered for noninferiority of the OCT group compared with the IVUS group. Safety outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS: At 1 year, primary end point events occurred in 25 of 1005 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 2.5%) in the OCT group and in 31 of 1003 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 3.1%) in the IVUS group (absolute difference, -0.6 percentage points; upper boundary of one-sided 97.5% CI, 0.97 percentage points; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy was similar (14 patients [1.4%] in the OCT group versus 15 patients [1.5%] in the IVUS group; P=0.85). The incidence of major procedural complications was lower in the OCT group than in the IVUS group (22 [2.2%] versus 37 [3.7%]; P=0.047), although imaging procedure-related complications were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with significant coronary artery lesions, OCT-guided PCI was noninferior to IVUS-guided PCI with respect to the incidence of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year. The selected study population and lower-than-expected event rates should be considered in interpreting the trial. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique number: NCT03394079.

Immediate versus staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease (BIOVASC): a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease, complete revascularisation by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with improved clinical outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PCI for non-culprit lesions should be attempted during the index procedure or staged. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial was done at 29 hospitals across Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. We included patients aged 18-85 years presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel (ie, two or more coronary arteries with a diameter of 2·5 mm or more and ≥70% stenosis based on visual estimation or positive coronary physiology testing) coronary artery disease with a clearly identifiable culprit lesion. A web-based randomisation module was used to randomly assign patients (1:1), with a random block size of four to eight, stratified by study centre, to undergo immediate complete revascularisation (PCI of the culprit lesion first, followed by other non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator during the index procedure) or staged complete revascularisation (PCI of only the culprit lesion during the index procedure and PCI of all non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator within 6 weeks after the index procedure). The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation, or cerebrovascular events at 1 year after the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation at 1 year after the index procedure. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat. Non-inferiority of immediate to staged complete revascularisation was considered to be met if the upper boundary of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not exceed 1·39. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03621501. FINDINGS: Between June 26, 2018, and Oct 21, 2021, 764 patients (median age 65·7 years [IQR 57·2-72·9] and 598 [78·3%] males) were randomly assigned to the immediate complete revascularisation group and 761 patients (median age 65·3 years [58·6-72·9] and 589 [77·4%] males) were randomly assigned to the staged complete revascularisation group, and were included in the intention-to-treat population. The primary outcome at 1 year occurred in 57 (7·6%) of 764 patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 71 (9·4%) of 761 patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·55-1·11, pnon-inferiority=0·0011). There was no difference in all-cause death between the immediate and staged complete revascularisation groups (14 [1·9%] vs nine [1·2%]; HR 1·56, 95% CI 0·68-3·61, p=0·30). Myocardial infarction occurred in 14 (1·9%) patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 34 (4·5%) patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·76, p=0·0045). More unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisations were performed in the staged complete revascularisation group than in the immediate complete revascularisation group (50 [6·7%] patients vs 31 [4·2%] patients; HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·39-0·95, p=0·030). INTERPRETATION: In patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, immediate complete revascularisation was non-inferior to staged complete revascularisation for the primary composite outcome and was associated with a reduction in myocardial infarction and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation. FUNDING: Erasmus University Medical Center and Biotronik.

Current concepts in coronary artery revascularisation.

Coronary artery revascularisation can be performed surgically or percutaneously. Surgery is associated with higher procedural risk and longer recovery than percutaneous interventions, but with long-term reduction of recurrent cardiac events. For many patients with obstructive coronary artery disease in need of revascularisation, surgical or percutaneous intervention is indicated on the basis of clinical and anatomical reasons or personal preferences. Medical therapy is a crucial accompaniment to coronary revascularisation, and data suggest that, in some subsets of patients, medical therapy alone might achieve similar results to coronary revascularisation. Most revascularisation data are based on prevalently White, non-elderly, male populations in high-income countries; robust data in women, older adults, and racial and other minorities, and from low-income and middle-income countries, are urgently needed.