Meta-Analysis Comparing Fractional Flow Reserve and Angiography-Guided Complete Revascularization of Nonculprit Artery for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

This study aimed to compare complete revascularization (CR) guided by angiography with a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD). CR is preferred to culprit-only revascularization for patients with STEMI and MVD. However, whether FFR-guided CR is superior to angiography-guided CR is unclear in patients presenting with STEMI who have MVD. Randomized controlled trials comparing CR with an FFR- or angiography-guided strategy to culprit-only revascularization in patients with STEMI and MVD were systematically identified. A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed comparing clinical outcomes in the 3 arms. A total of 13 studies with a total of 8,927 patients were included in our analysis. Compared with culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided CR was associated with a significantly decreased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.82), all-cause death (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97), and cardiovascular death (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.85) but FFR-guided CR was not (MI: HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.12; cardiovascular death: HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.24; all-cause death: HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.18). The network meta-analysis comparison of angiography- versus FFR-guided CR showed an HR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.11) for all-cause death and an HR of 0.71 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.17) for MI. In conclusion, for patients with MVD presenting with STEMI, angiography-guided CR may provide additional benefits compared with FFR-guided CR.

Trans-radial approach versus trans-femoral approach in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Trans-radial approach (TRA) is recommended over trans-femoral approach (TFA) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We intended to study the effect of access on all-cause mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE for randomized studies on patients with ACS undergoing PCI. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30-days. The secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACE) as defined by the study, net adverse clinical event (NACE), non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, stent thrombosis, study-defined major bleeding, and minor bleeding, vascular complications, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, non-access site bleeding, need for transfusion, access site cross-over, contrast volume, procedure duration, and hospital stay duration. We studied 20,122 ACS patients, including 10,037 and 10,085 patients undergoing trans-radial and trans-femoral approaches, respectively. We found mortality benefit in patients with ACS for the trans-radial approach [(1.7% vs. 2.3%; RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.62-0.91; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%). Out of 10,465 patients with STEMI, 5,189 patients had TRA and 5,276 had TFA procedures. A similar benefit was observed in patients with STEMI alone [(2.3% vs. 3.3%; RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.56-0.90; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%). We observed reduced MACE, NACE, major bleeding, vascular complications, and pseudoaneurysms. No difference in re-infarction, stroke, and serious bleeding requiring blood transfusions were noted. We noticed a small decrease in contrast volume(ml) {mean difference (95% CI): -4.6 [-8.5 to -0.7]}, small but significantly increase in procedural time {mean difference (95% CI) 1.2 [0.1 to 2.3]}and fluoroscopy time {mean difference (95% CI) 0.8 [0.3 to1.4] min} in the trans-radial group. CONCLUSION: TRA has significantly reduced 30-day all-cause mortality among patients undergoing PCI for ACS. TRA should be the preferred vascular access in patients with ACS.