[Early invasive strategy (<24 h) in high-risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: when the guideline recommendations need to be contextualized]. / Strategia invasiva precoce (<24 h) nelle sindromi coronariche acute senza sopraslivellamento del tratto ST ad alto rischio, ovvero quando le raccomandazioni delle linee guida dovrebbero essere contestualizzate.

The advantages of an early invasive strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) are well documented. Less clear is the ideal time to perform it (within 24 h, within 72 h, or during hospitalization after positive non-invasive testing for ischemia). In particular, the class IA recommendation for coronary angiography within 24 h in patients with high-risk NSTE-ACS is controversial. Randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses show neutral effects on mortality, while significant positive results are observed only for secondary outcomes (mainly ischemic recurrences). Favorable effects on major cardiovascular events are reported only in the subgroup analysis of a single randomized trial (TIMACS) or in several trials included in the meta-analyses. Thus, these results are far from conclusive and should stimulate new randomized clinical studies to support them. In fact, the logistical implications that this recommendation implies deserve stronger evidence. It is clear that all patients with NSTE-ACS, especially if high-risk, should have the opportunity to undergo a coronary angiogram during hospitalization. However, in the real world, the strict timeline of the international guidelines may be difficult to follow. Therefore, indications that take into account resource availability and the organizational context should be developed. Several regional indications suggest that even in high-risk patients the 24 h time limit for the invasive strategy should not be mandatory, but timing of angiography should be calibrated on clinical presentation and logistical resources, without any a priori automatism.

[Coronary revascularization in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease]. / Strategie di rivascolarizzazione coronarica nel paziente con infarto miocardico acuto con sopraslivellamento del tratto ST e malattia multivasale.

Forty to 60% of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients present with multivessel coronary artery disease, identified during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) of the culprit lesion. At present, data about revascularization of non-culprit coronary lesions are conflicting. Nevertheless, patients with multivessel coronary artery disease have a worse outcome. Recently, several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses compared a strategy of culprit-only revascularization vs complete revascularization (during pPCI or staged PCI of the non-culprit lesion). The majority of data show a potential benefit of complete revascularization, in particular a reduction in the composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events, in absence of certain data regarding long-term mortality and reinfarction. Besides, it is still controversial the optimal timing of complete revascularization (during pPCI or staged PCI), as well as the best method for evaluating the lesions to be treated (angiographic vs functional assessment of ischemia). Considering all these data, the only tested and safe approach to treat multivessel coronary artery disease patients remains optimization of medical therapy with long-term prescription of newer antiplatelet agents (ticagrelor and prasugrel) and aggressive lipid-lowering therapy (LDL <70 mg/dl). At the same time, a complete coronary revascularization strategy with PCI, especially guided by ischemia and based on patient lesions and comorbidity, may further improve outcomes.

Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease.

In 30-60 % of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), significant stenoses are present in one or more non-infarct-related arteries (IRA). This correlates with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Current guidelines, do not recommend revascularization of non-culprit lesions unless complicated by cardiogenic shock or persistent ischemia after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Prior observational and small randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the optimal revascularization strategy in STEMI patients with multivessel disease. Recently, randomized studies (PRAMI, CvLPRIT, and DANAMI 3-PRIMULTI) provide encouraging data that suggest potential benefit with complete revascularization in STEMI patients with obstructive non-culprit lesions. Differently, in the PRAGUE-13 trial there were no differences in MACE between complete revascularization and culprit-only PCI. Several meta-analyses were recently published including randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, showing different results depending on the included trials. In conclusion, the current available evidence from the randomized clinical trials, with a total sample size of only 2000 patients, is not robust enough to firmly recommend complete revascularization in STEMI patients. This uncertainty lends support to the continuation of the COMPLETE trial. This ongoing trial is anticipated to enroll 3900 patients with STEMI from across the world, and will be powered for the hard outcomes of death and myocardial infarction. Until the results of the COMPLETE trial are reported, physicians need to individualize care regarding the opportunity and the timing of the non-IRA PCI.

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and coronary artery disease: comparison between coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention.

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by a low platelet count and an increased risk of bleeding. At the same time, ITP patients present an increased risk of thrombosis and atherosclerosis related to the high presence of haemostatic factors and chronic steroid therapy. Although relatively rare, the association of ITP and coronary artery disease represents a complex therapeutic challenge. In particular, no recommendations exist regarding the best management approach. We reviewed the literature making a comparison between coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention.