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.).

Outcomes by sex in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial.

BACKGROUND: In the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial, among participants with stable coronary artery disease, the risk of cardiac events was similar between an invasive (INV) strategy of angiography and coronary revascularisation and a conservative (CON) strategy of initial medical therapy alone. Outcomes according to participant sex were not reported. AIMS: We aimed to analyse the outcomes of ISCHEMIA by participant sex. METHODS: We evaluated 1) the association between participant sex and the likelihood of undergoing revascularisation for participants randomised to the INV arm; 2) the risk of the ISCHEMIA primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, any myocardial infarction [MI] or rehospitalisation for unstable angina, heart failure or resuscitated cardiac arrest) by participant sex; and 3) the contribution of the individual primary outcome components to the composite outcome by participant sex. RESULTS: Of 5,179 randomised participants, 1,168 (22.6%) were women. Female sex was independently associated with a lower likelihood of revascularisation when assigned to the INV arm (adjusted odds ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.99; p=0.04). The INV versus CON effect on the primary composite outcome was similar between sexes (women: hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% CI: 0.70-1.33; men: HR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.76-1.07; pinteraction=0.71). The contribution of the individual components to the composite outcome was similar between sexes except for procedural MI, which was significantly lower in women (9/151 [5.9%]) than men (67/519 [12.9%]; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA, women assigned to the INV arm were less likely to undergo revascularisation than men. The effect of an INV versus CON strategy was consistent by sex, but women had a significantly lower contribution of procedural MI to the primary outcome.

82-rubidium positron emission tomography determined myocardial flow reserve and outcomes following cardiac revascularisation - A multicentre registry study.

BACKGROUND: Finding patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) whom revascularization could benefit, is complicated. Myocardial flow reserve (MFR), a measurement of myocardial perfusion, has proven prognostic value on survival and risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We investigated if MFR identifies who may benefit from revascularization. METHODS: Among 7462 patients from Danish hospitals examined with 82Rb PET between January 2018 and August 2020, patients with ≥5% reversible perfusion defects were followed for MACE and all-cause mortality. Associations between revascularisation (within 90 days) and outcomes according to MFR (< and ≥ 2) was assessed by Cox regression adjusted by inverse probability weighting for demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, comorbidities, and 82Rb PET variables. RESULTS: Of 1806 patients with ≥5% reversible perfusion defect, 893 (49%) had MFR < 2 and 491 underwent revascularisation (36.6% in MFR < 2 versus 17.9% MFR ≥ 2, p < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 37.0 [31.0-45.8 IQR] months, 251 experienced a MACE and 173 died. Revascularisation was associated with lower adjusted risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.30-0.88], p = 0.015) and MACE (HR, 0.54 [0.33-0.87], p = 0.012) in patients with MFR < 2 but not MFR ≥ 2 for all-cause mortality (HR 1.33 [0.52-3.40], p = 0.542) and MACE (HR 1.50 [0.79-2.84], p = 0.211). MFR significantly modified the association between revascularisation and MACE, but not all-cause mortality (interaction p-value 0.021 and 0.094, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Revascularization was associated with improved prognosis among patients with impaired MFR. No association was seen in patients with normal MFR. In patients with regional ischemia, MFR may identify patients with a prognostic benefit from revascularization.

Differences in coronary angiographic findings and outcomes between men and postmenopausal women with stable chest pain.

BACKGROUND: Despite the significant increase in cardiovascular events in women after menopause, studies comparing postmenopausal women and men are scarce. METHODS: We analyzed data from a nationwide, multicenter, prospective registry and enrolled 2412 patients with stable chest pain who underwent elective coronary angiography. Binary coronary artery disease (b-CAD) was defined as the ≥50% stenosis of epicardial coronary arteries, including the left main coronary artery. RESULTS: Compared with the men, postmenopausal women were older (66.6 ±â€…8.5 vs. 59.5 ±â€…11.4 years) and had higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (49.0 ±â€…12.8 vs. 43.6 ±â€…11.6 mg/dl, P  < 0.01). The prevalence of diabetes did not differ significantly ( P  = 0.40), and smoking was more common in men than in postmenopausal women ( P  ≤ 0.01). At enrollment, b-CAD and revascularization were more common in men than in postmenopausal women (50.3% vs. 41.0% and 14.4% vs. 9.7%, respectively; both P  < 0.01). However, multivariate analyses revealed that revascularization [odds ratio (OR): 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-1.08] was not significantly related to sex and a similar result was found in age propensity-matched population (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.52-1.24). During the follow-up period, the secondary composite cardiovascular outcomes were lower in postmenopausal women than in men (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.31-0.98), also consistent with the result using the age propensity-mated population (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.13-0.85). CONCLUSION: Postmenopausal women experienced coronary revascularization comparable to those in men at enrollment, despite the average age of postmenopausal women was 7 years older than that of men.Postmenopausal women exhibit better clinical outcomes than those of men if optimal treatment is provided.

Examining the Outcomes of Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in Acute STEMI Patients from 2015 to 2022.

Background: The global rise of chronic diseases, especially cardiovascular disease (CVD), poses a significant public health challenge, being a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. In Iran, the surge in CVD incidence and its risk factors, along with a decrease in the age of onset, has notably increased the reliance on coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as a life-saving intervention. Staged hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), which combines percutaneous coronary intervention with delayed CABG, offers a novel approach for patients with complex coronary artery disease, potentially improving survival and reducing complications. Considering the newness of this treatment method and the limitations of previous studies, we investigated the results of staged HCR in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients in this study. Methods: This observational study was performed on consecutive patients with acute STEMI who underwent staged HCR and were referred to Valiasr and Razi hospitals in Birjand from 2015 to 2022. The required information (demographic information, angiography result, and operation side effects) was collected in a checklist. If necessary, the patients were contacted by phone. After collecting the data, they were entered into SPSS version 16 software. Results: This study was conducted on 33 patients with a mean age of 64.88 ± 9.24 years (69.7% male). The average hospital stay was 11.6 ± 8.9 days (3 to 72 days). The mean ejection fraction and syntax score were 36.5% ± 10.2% and 31.21 ± 6.7, respectively. Following surgery and during hospitalization, arrhythmias were observed, including 33.3% with premature ventricular contractions, 18.1% with atrial fibrillation, and 3.1% with ventricular tachycardia. The average number of pack cells (red blood cells that have been separated for blood transfusion) and creatinine changes before and after hybrid surgery were 640.9 ± 670.9 cc and 0.055 ± 0.07. In the follow-up, 9.09% of patients had late mortality, 6.1% of patients had urinary tract infections during hospitalization, 6.1% of patients had surgical site infections, 3.1% needed dialysis, and none of the studied patients had premature death or need for reintervention. Conclusions: The results of our study indicated that staged HCR performed early after an ACS is not associated with significant mortality or complications. Therefore, it is advisable to consider staged HCR as a surgical option in appropriate cases.

Impact of a Cancer History on Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Myocardial Infarction Who Received Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: It remains controversial whether a cancer history increases the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events among patients with myocardial infarction (MI) who undergo revascularization.Methods and Results: Patients who were confirmed as type 1 acute MI (AMI) by coronary angiography were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who died in hospital or those not undergoing revascularization were excluded. Patients with a cancer history were compared with those without it. A cancer history was examined in the in-hospital cancer registry. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac death, recurrent type 1 MI, post-discharge coronary revascularization, heart failure hospitalization, and stroke. Among 551 AMI patients, 55 had a cancer history (cancer group) and 496 did not (non-cancer group). Cox proportional hazards model revealed that the risk of composite endpoint was significantly higher in the cancer group than in the non-cancer group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-2.82). Among the cancer group, patients who were diagnosed as AMI within 6 months after the cancer diagnosis had a higher risk of the composite endpoint than those who were diagnosed as AMI 6 months or later after the cancer diagnosis (adjusted HR: 5.43; 95% CI: 1.55-19.07). CONCLUSIONS: A cancer history increased the risk of CV events after discharge among AMI patients after revascularization.

Effects of complete revascularization according to age in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (COMPLETE-AGE).

BACKGROUND: In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit-lesion-only PCI. Whether age influences these results remains unknown. METHODS: COMPLETE was a multinational, randomized trial evaluating a strategy of staged complete revascularization, consisting of angiography-guided PCI of all suitable nonculprit lesions, versus a strategy of culprit-lesion-only PCI. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, treatment effect according to age (≥65 years vs <65 years) was determined for the first coprimary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or new myocardial infarction (MI) and the second coprimary outcome of CV death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR). Median follow-up was 35.8 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 27.6-44.3 months). RESULTS: Of 4,041 patients randomized in COMPLETE, 1,613 were aged ≥ 65 years (39.9%). Higher event rates were observed for both coprimary outcomes in patients aged ≥ 65 years comparted with those aged < 65 years (11.2% vs 7.9%, HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.22-1.83; 14.4% vs 11.8%, HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07-1.52, respectively). Complete revascularization reduced the first coprimary outcome in patients ≥ 65 years (9.7% vs 12.5%, HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.58-1.04) and < 65 years (6.7% vs 9.1%, HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96)(interaction P = .74). The second coprimary outcome was reduced in those ≥ 65 years (HR 0.56, 95% CI, 0.43-0.74) and < 65 years (HR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.37-0.61 (interaction P = .37). A sensitivity analysis was performed with consistent results demonstrated using a 75-year threshold (albeit attenuated). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization compared with culprit-lesion-only PCI reduced major cardiovascular events regardless of patient age and could be considered as a revascularization strategy in older adults.

Long-term follow-up of patients with complex coronary artery disease treated with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass.

BACKGROUND: Patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) may benefit from surgical myocardial revascularization but weighing the risk of peri-operative complications against the expected merit is difficult. Minimally invasive direct artery bypass (MIDCAB) procedures are less invasive, provide the prognostic advantage of operative revascularization of the left anterior descending artery and may be integrated in hybrid strategies. Herein, the outcomes between patients with coronary 1-vessel disease (1-VD) and patients with 2-VD and 3-VD after MIDCAB procedures were compared in this single-center study. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2018, 1363 patients underwent MIDCAB at the documented institution. 628 (46.1%) patients had 1-VD, 434 (31.9%) patients 2-VD and 300 (22.0%) patients suffered from 3-VD. Data of patients with 2-VD, and 3-VD were pooled as multi-VD (MVD). RESULTS: Patients with MVD were older (66.2 ± 10.9 vs. 62.9 ± 11.2 years; p < 0.001) and presented with a higher EuroScore II (2.10 [0.4; 34.2] vs. 1.2 [0.4; 12.1]; p < 0.001). Procedure time was longer in MVD patients (131.1 ± 50.3 min vs. 122.2 ± 34.5 min; p < 0.001). Post-operatively, MVD patients had a higher stroke rate (17 [2.3%] vs. 4 [0.6%]; p = 0.014). No difference in 30-day mortality was observed (12 [1.6%] vs. 4 [0.6%]; p = 0.128). Survival after 15 years was significantly lower in MVD patients (p < 0.01). Hybrid procedures were planned in 295 (40.2%) patients with MVD and realized in 183 (61.2%) cases. MVD patients with incomplete hybrid procedures had a significantly decreased long-term survival compared to cases with complete revascularization (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass procedures are low-risk surgical procedures. If hybrid procedures have been planned, completion of revascularization should be a major goal.

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.).

Vessel-Specific Outcomes of Deferred Revascularization Following Negative Fractional Flow Reserve.

Variations in myocardial supply area and hydrostatic pressure gradients result in greater likelihood of positive fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the left anterior descending (LAD) compared with the circumflex (Cx) and right coronary artery (RCA). However, the same FFR threshold for deferral of revascularization is applied to all arteries, without evidence that this results in equivalent outcomes. We assessed vessel-specific outcomes of deferred revascularization for the 3 major coronary arteries based on FFR > 0.8. In this retrospective study, data were obtained on consecutive patients who underwent indicated FFR assessment across 2 tertiary institutions. Patients with deferred revascularization were followed for 36 months for the primary end point of vessel-specific target lesion failure (TLF). Of 1,916 major coronary arteries (1,579 patients), the odds ratio of positive FFR was highest in the LAD (odds ratio 3.36, p <0.001). In total, 867 vessels (733 patients) with FFR > 0.8 had complete 3-year medical record follow-ups. The TLF rate for deferred vessels was 10.21%, 11.52%, and 10.96% for the LAD, Cx, and RCA respectively. In a multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference in the odds of TLF for the 0.84 (0.53 to 1.33, p = 0.459), 1.17 (0.68 to 2.01, p = 0.582), and 1.11 (0.62 to 2.00, p = 0.715) in the LAD, Cx, and RCA, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, diabetes mellitus was the only baseline characteristic significantly associated at risk of TLF (1.43 [1.01 to 2.02], p = 0.043). In conclusion, despite greater likelihood of positive FFR in the LAD, the FFR threshold for deferred revascularization resulted in equivalent outcomes in all 3 major coronary arteries, and patients with diabetes mellitus may represent a group that requires aggressive surveillance and risk factor modification after deferred revascularization.

Impact of Complete Revascularization in the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Anatomic complete revascularization (ACR) and functional complete revascularization (FCR) have been associated with reduced death and myocardial infarction (MI) in some prior studies. The impact of complete revascularization (CR) in patients undergoing an invasive (INV) compared with a conservative (CON) management strategy has not been reported. OBJECTIVES: Among patients with chronic coronary disease without prior coronary artery bypass grafting randomized to INV vs CON management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial, we examined the following: 1) the outcomes of ACR and FCR compared with incomplete revascularization; and 2) the potential impact of achieving CR in all INV patients compared with CON management. METHODS: ACR and FCR in the INV group were assessed at an independent core laboratory. Multivariable-adjusted outcomes of CR were examined in INV patients. Inverse probability weighted modeling was then performed to estimate the treatment effect had CR been achieved in all INV patients compared with CON management. RESULTS: ACR and FCR were achieved in 43.4% and 58.4% of 1,824 INV patients. ACR was associated with reduced 4-year rates of cardiovascular death or MI compared with incomplete revascularization. By inverse probability weighted modeling, ACR in all 2,296 INV patients compared with 2,498 CON patients was associated with a lower 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI (difference -3.5; 95% CI: -7.2% to 0.0%). In comparison, the event rate difference of cardiovascular death or MI for INV minus CON in the overall ISCHEMIA trial was -2.4%. Results were similar but less pronounced with FCR. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of an INV strategy may be improved if CR (especially ACR) is achieved. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Novel Concepts in the Management of Angina in Coronary Artery Disease.

Coronary artery disease remains a condition with high prevalence and detrimental effects on the quality of life of affected individuals. Its most frequent manifestation, stable angina pectoris, may be challenging to manage despite the available antianginal pharmacotherapy and adequate risk factor control, especially in subjects not amenable to revascularization. In the direction of refractory angina pectoris, several approaches have been developed over the years with varying degrees of success. Among the most recognized techniques in managing angina is enhanced external counterpulsation, which utilizes mechanical compression of the lower extremities to increase blood flow to the heart. Moving to coronary sinus reduction, it leads to an increase in coronary sinus backward pressure, ultimately augmenting myocardial blood flow redistribution to ischemic regions and ameliorating chronic angina. Clinical trial results of the above-mentioned techniques have been encouraging but are based on small sample sizes to justify their widespread application. Other interventional approaches, such as transmyocardial laser revascularization, extracorporeal shockwave myocardial revascularization, and spinal cord stimulation, have been met with either controversial or negative results, and their use is not recommended. Lastly, angiogenic therapy with targeted intramyocardial vascular endothelial growth factor injection or CD34+ cell therapy may be beneficial and warrants further investigation. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge in the field of angina management, highlighting the potential and the gaps in the existing evidence that ought to be addressed in future larger-scale, randomized studies before these techniques can be safely adapted in the clinical practice of patients with refractory angina pectoris.

Myocardial Revascularization in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: For Whom and How.

Background Myocardial revascularization has been advocated to improve myocardial function and prognosis in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). We discuss the evidence for revascularization in patients with ICM and the role of ischemia and viability detection in guiding treatment. Methods and Results We searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the prognostic impact of revascularization in ICM and the value of viability imaging for patient management. Out of 1397 publications, 4 randomized controlled trials were included, enrolling 2480 patients. Three trials (HEART [Heart Failure Revascularisation Trial], STICH [Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure], and REVIVED [REVascularization for Ischemic VEntricular Dysfunction]-BCIS2) randomized patients to revascularization or optimal medical therapy. HEART was stopped prematurely without showing any significant difference between treatment strategies. STICH showed a 16% lower mortality with bypass surgery compared with optimal medical therapy at a median follow-up of 9.8 years. However, neither the presence/extent of left ventricle viability nor ischemia interacted with treatment outcomes. REVIVED-BCIS2 showed no difference in the primary end point between percutaneous revascularization or optimal medical therapy. PARR-2 (Positron Emission Tomography and Recovery Following Revascularization) randomized patients to imaging-guided revascularization versus standard care, with neutral results overall. Information regarding the consistency of patient management with viability testing results was available in ≈65% of patients (n=1623). No difference in survival was revealed according to adherence or no adherence to viability imaging. Conclusions In ICM, the largest randomized controlled trial, STICH, suggests that surgical revascularization improves patients' prognosis at long-term follow-up, whereas evidence supports no benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention. Data from randomized controlled trials do not support myocardial ischemia or viability testing for treatment guidance. We propose an algorithm for the workup of patients with ICM considering clinical presentation, imaging results, and surgical risk.

Long-term results of myocardial revascularization in patients with multivessel disease.

BACKGROUND: Choosing the method of revascularization - coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) - remains debatable. METHODS: We selected 406 patients with multivessel disease who underwent PCI with a drug-eluting stent (DES) (n = 200, 100 with a SYNTAX score (SS) ≤ 22 and 100 with a SS 23-32); and CABG (n = 206, 100 with a SS ≤ 22 and 106 with a SS 23-32). The mean follow-up period was 9±1.9 years. The endpoints of the study were as follows: major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (МАССЕ), a repeat revascularization (RR), diminished left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and high SS in dynamics. RESULTS: Patients with an intermediate SS needed RR more often with PCI than after CABG (64 % vs 22.6 %; HR: 3.52; CI: 2.19-5.66; р < 0.001). We found no significant differences for other MACCE between the groups. The decrease in LVEF was greater in the low SS subgroup in operated patients than after PCI (39.5 % vs 27.7 %; HR: 0.57; CI: 0.34-0.98; p = 0.04). The difference between the initial and final SS, was greater after the CABG than after PCI (43.5 % vs 10.9 %; HR: 0.26; CI: 0.14-0.47; р < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After 9 ± 1.9 years in intermediate SS group CABG exhibited an advantage over PCI with DES in terms of the MACCE indicators due to a smaller number of RR in the CABG group. The CABG group showed a more significant progression of atherosclerosis, and more heart failure cases (Tab. 2, Fig. 4, Ref. 29). Text in PDF www.elis.sk Keywords: coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, SYNTAX score.

Integrating Coronary Atherosclerosis Burden and Progression with Coronary Artery Disease Risk Factors to Guide Therapeutic Decision Making.

IMPORTANCE: Although atherosclerosis represents the primary driver of coronary artery disease, evaluation and treatment approaches have historically relied upon indirect markers of atherosclerosis that include surrogates (cholesterol), signs (angina), and sequelae (ischemia) of atherosclerosis. Direct quantification and characterization of atherosclerosis may encourage a precision heart care paradigm that improves diagnosis, risk stratification, therapeutic decision-making, and longitudinal disease tracking in a personalized fashion. OBSERVATIONS: The American College of Cardiology Innovations in Prevention Working Group introduce the Atherosclerosis Treatment Algorithms that personalize medical interventions based upon atherosclerosis findings from coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and cardiovascular risk factors. Through integration of coronary CTA-based atherosclerosis evaluation, clinical practice guidelines, and contemporary randomized controlled trial evidence, the Atherosclerosis Treatment Algorithms leverage patient-specific atherosclerosis burden and progression as primary targets for therapeutic intervention. After defining stages of atherosclerosis severity by coronary CTA, Atherosclerosis Treatment Algorithms are described for worsening stages of atherosclerosis for patients with lipid disorders, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and tobacco use. The authors anticipate a rapid pace of research in the field, and conclude by providing perspectives on future needs that may improve efforts to optimize precision prevention of coronary artery disease. Importantly, the Atherosclerosis Treatment Algorithms are not endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, and should not be interpreted as a statement of American College of Cardiology policy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We describe a precision heart care approach that emphasizes atherosclerosis as the primary disease target for evaluation and treatment. To our knowledge, this is the first proposal to use coronary atherosclerosis burden and progression to personalize therapy selection and therapy changes, respectively. DISCLOSURE: The American College of Cardiology Foundation has made an investment in Cleerly, Inc., makers of a software solution that utilizes coronary CT angiography findings to evaluate coronary artery disease.