Clinical impact of multimodality assessment of myocardial viability.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a prevalent cause of left ventricular dysfunction. Nevertheless, effective elective revascularization, particularly surgical revascularization, can enhance long-term outcomes and, in selected cases, global left ventricular contractility. The assessment of myocardial viability and scars is still relevant in guiding treatment decisions and selecting patients who are likely to benefit most from blood flow restoration. Although the most recent randomized studies challenge the notion of "hibernating myocardium" and the clinical usefulness of assessing myocardial viability, the advancement of imaging techniques still renders this assessment valuable in specific situations. According to the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology, non-invasive stress imaging may be employed to define myocardial ischemia and viability in patients with CAD and heart failure before revascularization. Currently, several non-invasive imaging techniques are available to evaluate the presence and extent of viable myocardium. The selection of the most suitable technique should be based on the patient, clinical context, and resource availability. This narrative review evaluates the characteristics of available imaging modalities for assessing myocardial viability to determine the most appropriate therapeutic strategy.

Sex- and age-related differences in outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction: MINOCA vs. MIOCA.

AIMS: The aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of sex on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients' clinical presentation and outcomes, comparing those with non-obstructive and obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA vs. MIOCA). METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 2455 patients with AMI undergoing coronary angiography from January 2017 to September 2021. Patients were divided according to the type of AMI and sex: male (n = 1593) and female (n = 607) in MIOCA and male (n = 87) and female (n = 168) in MINOCA. Each cohort was further stratified based on age (≤/> 70 years). The primary endpoint (MAE) was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent AMI, and hospitalization for heart failure (HF) at follow-up. Secondary outcomes included all-cause and cardiovascular death, recurrent AMI, HF re-hospitalization, and stroke. MINOCA patients were more likely to be females compared with MIOCA ones (P < 0.001). The median follow-up was 28 (15-41) months. The unadjusted incidence of MAE was significantly higher in females compared with males, both in MINOCA [45 (26.8%) vs. 12 (13.8%); P = 0.018] and MIOCA cohorts [203 (33.4%) vs. 428 (26.9%); P = 0.002]. Age was an independent predictor of MAE in both cohorts. Among MINOCA patients, females ≤70 years old had a higher incidence of MAE [18 (23.7%) vs. 4 (5.9%); P = 0.003] compared with male peers, mainly driven by a higher rate of re-hospitalization for HF (P = 0.045) and recurrence of AMI (P = 0.006). Only in this sub-group of MINOCA patients, female sex was an independent predictor of MAE (hazard ratio = 3.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.02-9.59; P = 0.040). MINOCA females ≤70 years old had worse outcomes than MIOCA female peers. CONCLUSION: MINOCA females ≤70 years old had a significantly higher incidence of MAE, compared with males and MIOCA female peers, likely due to the different pathophysiology of the ischaemic event. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Data were part of the ongoing observational study 'AMIPE: Acute Myocardial Infarction, Prognostic and Therapeutic Evaluation' (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03883711).

Performance of Prognostic Scoring Systems in MINOCA: A Comparison among GRACE, TIMI, HEART, and ACEF Scores.

Background: the prognosis of patients with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is not benign; thus, prompting the need to validate prognostic scoring systems for this population. Aim: to evaluate and compare the prognostic performance of GRACE, TIMI, HEART, and ACEF scores in MINOCA patients. Methods: A total of 250 MINOCA patients from January 2017 to September 2021 were included. For each patient, the four scores at admission were retrospectively calculated. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at 1-year follow-up. The ability to predict 1-year all-cause death was also tested. Results: Overall, the tested scores presented a sub-optimal performance in predicting the composite major adverse event in MINOCA patients, showing an AUC ranging between 0.7 and 0.8. Among them, the GRACE score appeared to be the best in predicting all-cause death, reaching high specificity with low sensitivity. The best cut-off identified for the GRACE score was 171, higher compared to the cut-off of 140 generally applied to identify high-risk patients with obstructive AMI. When the scores were tested for prediction of 1-year all-cause death, the GRACE and the ACEF score showed very good accuracy (AUC = 0.932 and 0.828, respectively). Conclusion: the prognostic scoring tools, validated in AMI cohorts, could be useful even in MINOCA patients, although their performance appeared sub-optimal, prompting the need for risk assessment tools specific to MINOCA patients.