Role of Invasive Strategy for Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have traditionally been excluded from randomized trials. We aimed to compare percutaneous coronary intervention versus conservative management, and early intervention (EI; within 24 hours of admission) versus delayed intervention (DI; after 24 to 72 hours of admission) in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and concomitant CKD. An electronic literature search was performed to search for studies comparing invasive management to conservative management or EI versus DI in patients with NSTEMI with CKD. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI) or dialysis, major bleeding, and recurrent MI. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the primary outcome and odds ratios for secondary outcomes were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Eleven studies (140,544 patients) were analyzed. Invasive management was associated with lower mortality than conservative management (HR 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.67, p <0.001, I2 = 47%), with consistent benefit across all CKD stages, except CKD 5. There was no significant mortality difference between EI and DI, but subgroup analyses showed significant benefit for EI in stage 1 to 2 CKD (HR 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.97, p = 0.03, I2 = 0%), with no significant difference in stage 3 and 4 to 5 CKD. Invasive strategy was associated with higher odds of AKI or dialysis and major bleeding, but lower odds of recurrent MI compared with conservative management. In conclusion, in patients with NSTEMI and CKD, an invasive strategy is associated with significant mortality benefit over conservative management in most patients with CKD, but at the expense of higher risk of AKI and bleeding. EI appears to benefit those with early stages of CKD. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023405491.

Coronary Intravascular Lithotripsy Versus Rotational Atherectomy in an Asian Population: Clinical Outcomes in Real-World Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We compared real-world clinical outcomes of patients receiving intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) versus rotational atherectomy (RA) for heavily calcified coronary lesions. METHODS: Fifty-three patients who received IVL from January 2017 to July 2020 were retrospectively compared to 271 patients who received RA from January 2017 to December 2018. Primary endpoints were in-hospital and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). RESULTS: IVL patients had a higher prevalence of acute coronary syndrome (56.6% vs 24.4, p<0.001), multivessel disease (96.2% vs 73.3%, p<0.001) and emergency procedures (17.0% vs 2.2%, p<0.001) compared to RA. In-hospital MACE (11.3% vs 5.9%, p=0.152), MI (7.5% vs 3.3%, p=0.152), and mortality (5.7% vs 3.0%, p=0.319) were not statistically significant. 30-day MACE was higher in the IVL cohort vs RA (17.0% vs 7.4%, p=0.035). Propensity score adjusted regression using IVL was also performed on in-hospital MACE (odds ratio [OR], 1.677; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.588-4.779) and 30-day MACE (OR, 1.910; 95% CI, 0.774-4.718). CONCLUSIONS: These findings represent our initial IVL experience in a high-risk, real-world cohort. Although the event rate in the IVL arm was numerically higher compared to RA, the small numbers and retrospective nature of this study preclude definitive conclusions. These clinical outcomes are likely to improve with greater experience and better case selection, allowing IVL to effectively treat complex calcified coronary lesions.