Outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock treated with culprit vessel-only versus multivessel primary PCI.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Multivessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is still often used in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aimed to compare the characteristics and prognosis of patients with CS-STEMI and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) treated with culprit vessel-only pPCI or multivessel-pPCI during the initial procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2016 to 2020, 23,703 primary PCI patients with STEMI were included in a national all-comers registry of cardiovascular interventions. Of them, 1,213 (5.1%) patients had CS and MVD at admission to the hospital. Initially, 921 (75.9%) patients were treated with culprit vessel (CV)-pPCI and 292 (24.1%) with multivessel (MV)-pPCI. RESULTS: Patients with 3-vessel disease and left main disease had a higher probability of being treated with MV-pPCI than patients with 2-vessel disease and patients without left main disease (28.5% vs. 18.6%; p < 0.001 and 37.7% vs. 20.6%; p < 0.001). Intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and other mechanical circulatory support systems were more often used in patients with MV-pPCI. Thirty (30)-day and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were similar in the CV-pPCI and MV-pPCI groups (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 1.32; p = 0.937 and 1.1; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.44; p = 0.477). The presence of 3-vessel disease and the use of ECMO were the strongest adjusted predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our data from an extensive all-comers registry suggests that selective use of MV-pPCI does not increase the all-cause mortality rate in patients with CS-STEMI and MVD compared to CV-pPCI.

Whats new in 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST segment elevation?

The article sumarizes the 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. The diagnostics of ACS consists in assessment of chest pain, EKG and cardiac troponin. Troponin should be evaluated by high sensitivity assay. 0h/1h algorithms should be used to rule-in or rule-out ACS. Patients with a positive troponin have higher risk of cardivascular events and mortality and the early invasive treatment should be applied in these patients. In the guidelines several antithrombotic stretegies for different clinical conditions are mentioned, where the cornerstone for the length and intensity of antithrombotic treatment is the evaluation of bleeding risk. Further on the revascularization aspects and strategies are debated in the guidelines. Finally there are mentioned two specific conditions of ACS - Myocardioal infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries and Spontaneous coronary artery dissection.

Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Assessment of Lesion Hemodynamic Significance and Explanation of their Discrepancies. International, Multicenter and Prospective Trial: The FiGARO Study.

Background The FiGARO (FFR versus iFR in Assessment of Hemodynamic Lesion Significance, and an Explanation of Their Discrepancies) trial is a prospective registry searching for predictors of fractional flow reserve/instantaneous wave-free ratio (FFR/iFR) discrepancy. Methods and Results FFR/iFR were analyzed using a Verrata wire, and coronary flow reserve was analyzed using a Combomap machine (both Philips-Volcano). The risk polymorphisms for endothelial nitric oxide synthase and for heme oxygenase-1 were analyzed. In total, 1884 FFR/iFR measurements from 1564 patients were included. The FFR/iFR discrepancy occurred in 393 measurements (20.9%): FFRp (positive)/iFRn (negative) type (264 lesions, 14.0%) and FFRn/iFRp (129 lesions, 6.8%) type. Coronary flow reserve was measured in 343 lesions, correlating better with iFR (R=0.56, P<0.0001) than FFR (R=0.36, P<0.0001). The coronary flow reserve value in FFRp/iFRn lesions (2.24±0.7) was significantly higher compared with both FFRp/iFRp (1.39±0.36), and FFRn/iFRn lesions (1.8±0.64, P<0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis confirmed (1) sex, age, and lesion location in the right coronary artery as predictors for FFRp/iFRn discrepancy; and (2) hemoglobin level, smoking, and renal insufficiency as predictors for FFRn/iFRp discrepancy. The FFRn/iFRp type of discrepancy was significantly more frequent in patients with both risk types of polymorphisms (endothelial nitric oxide synthaser+heme oxygenase-1r): 8 patients (24.2%) compared with FFRp/iFRn type of discrepancy: 2 patients (5.9%), P=0.03. Conclusions Predictors for FFRp/iFRn discrepancy were sex, age, and location in the right coronary artery. Predictors for FFRn/iFRp were hemoglobin level, smoking, and renal insufficiency. The risk type of polymorphism in endothelial nitric oxide synthase and heme oxygenase-1 genes was more frequently found in patients with FFRn/iFRp type of discrepancy. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03033810.

The relationship between symptom onset-to-needle time and ischemic outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary PCI: Observations from Prague-18 Study.

OBJECTIVES: Based on previous studies with clopidogrel, the time between acute myocardial infarction (AMI) symptoms onset and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was proven as important prognostic factor. Our aim was to assess the relationship between symptoms onset to needle time (SNT) and procedural results and the occurrence of ischemic endpoints in primary angioplasty patients treated with potent P2Y12 inhibitors. METHODS: A total of 1,131 out of 1,230 patients randomized to the Prague-18 study (prasugrel vs. ticagrelor in primary PCI) were divided into a high and a low-risk group. The effect of defined SNT on patients' ischemic endpoints and prognosis by their risk status at admission was tested. RESULTS: The median SNT was 3.2 hours. Longer SNTs resulted in a more frequent incidence of TIMI flow <3 post PCI (p=0.015). There were significant differences in the occurrence of the combined ischemic endpoint among the compared SNT groups at 30 days (p=0.032), and 1 year (p=0.011), with the highest incidence in the ≤1 h SNT group of patients. "Latecomers" (SNT>4 hs) in the high-risk group experienced more reinfarction within 1 year [OR (95% CI) 3.23 (1.09-9.62) p=0.035]; no difference was found in the low-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of intense antithrombotic medication, stratification of MI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, based on initial ischemic risk assessment affected prognosis more than symptom onset to needle time. Longer time delay was significantly related to increased incidence of ischemic events and all-cause mortality only in patients with high ischemic risk.

The Effect of Diabetes on Prognosis Following Myocardial Infarction Treated with Primary Angioplasty and Potent Antiplatelet Therapy.

PURPOSE: To investigate the prognostic significance of diabetes mellitus (DM) in patients with high risk acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in the era of potent antithrombotics. METHODS: Data from 1230 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients enrolled in the PRAGUE-18 (prasugrel vs. ticagrelor in pPCI) study were analyzed. Ischemic and bleeding event rates were calculated for patients with and without diabetes. The independent impact of diabetes on outcomes was evaluated after adjustment for outcome predictors. RESULTS: The prevalence of DM was 20% (N = 250). Diabetics were older and more often female. They were more likely to have hypertension, hyperlipoproteinemia, multivessel coronary disease and left main disease, and be obese. The primary net-clinical endpoint (EP) containing death, spontaneous nonfatal MI, stroke, severe bleeding, and revascularization at day 7 occurred in 6.1% of patients with, and in 3.5% of patients without DM (HR 1.8; 95% CI 0.978-3.315; P = 0.055). At one year, the key secondary endpoint defined as cardiovascular death, spontaneous MI, or stroke occurred in 8.8% with, and 5.5% without DM (HR 1.621; 95% CI 0.987-2.661; P = 0.054). In those with DM the risk of total one-year mortality (6.8% vs. 3.9% (HR 1.773; 95% CI 1.001-3.141; P = 0.047)) and the risk of nonfatal reinfarction (4.8% vs. 2.2% (HR 2.177; 95% CI 1.077-4.398; P = 0.026)) were significantly higher compared to in those without DM. There was no risk of major bleeding associated with DM (HR 0.861; 95% CI 0.554-1.339; P = 0.506). In the multivariate analysis, diabetes was independently associated with the one-year risk of reinfarction (HR 2.176; 95% Confidence Interval, 1.055-4.489; p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: Despite best practices STEMI treatment, diabetes is still associated with significantly worse prognoses, which highlights the importance of further improvements in the management of this high-risk population.

The prognostic significance of periprocedural infarction in the era of potent antithrombotic therapy. The PRAGUE-18 substudy.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) remains controversial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study aims to investigate the incidence of periprocedural MI in the era of high sensitivity diagnostic markers and intense antithrombotics, and its impact on early outcomes of patients with acute MI treated with primary angioplasty (pPCI). Data from the PRAGUE-18 (prasugrel versus ticagrelor in pPCI) study were analyzed. The primary net-clinical endpoint (EP) included death, spontaneous MI, stroke, severe bleeding, and revascularization at day 7. The key secondary efficacy EP included cardiovascular death, spontaneous MI, and stroke within 30 days. The incidence of peri-pPCI MI was 2.3% (N = 28) in 1230 study patients. The net-clinical EP occurred in 10.7% of patients with, and in 3.6% of patients without, peri-pPCI MI (HR 2.92; 95% CI 0.91-9.38; P = 0.059). The key efficacy EP was 10.7% and 3.2%, respectively (HR 3.44; 95% CI 1.06-11.13; P = 0.028). Patients with periprocedural MI were at a higher risk of spontaneous MI (HR 6.19; 95% CI 1.41-27.24; P = 0.006) and stent thrombosis (HR 10.77; 95% CI 2.29-50.70; P = 0.003) within 30 days. Age, hyperlipidemia, multi-vessel disease, post-procedural TIMI <3, pPCI on circumflex coronary artery, and periprocedural GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor were independent predictors of peri-pPCI MI. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of intense antithrombotic therapy, the occurrence of peri-pPCI MI is despite highly sensitive diagnostic markers a rare complication, and is associated with an increased risk of early reinfarction and stent thrombosis.

Prediction Score for persisting perfusion defects after pulmonary embolism.

AIMS: Long-term persistence of perfusion defect after pulmonaryembolism (PE) may lead to the development of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Identification of patients at risk of such a complication using a scoring system would be beneficial in clinical practice. Here, we aimed to derive a score for predicting persistence of perfusion defects after PE. METHODS: 83 patients after PE were re-examined 6, 12 and 24 months after the PE episode. Data collected at the time of PE and perfusion status during follow-ups were used for modelling perfusion defects persistence using the Cox proportional hazards model and validated using bootstrap method. RESULTS: A simple scoring system utilizing two variables (hemoglobin levels and age at the time of PE) was developed. Patients with hemoglobin levels over 140 g/L who were older than 65 years were at the highest risk of perfusion defects; in patients with the same hemoglobin levels and age <65 years, the risk was reduced by 79%, and by 89% in patients with hemoglobin <140 g/L. CONCLUSION: The proposed scoring system may be useful in clinical practice for identifying patients with high risk of persisting perfusion defects, flagging them for closer follow up, thus improving the effectiveness of long-term treatment of patients after PE.

Safety of early discharge in low risk patients after acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Open label, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The length of hospital stay in patients with acute myocardial infarction and ST-segment elevation (STEMI) has been shortened in recent years with corresponding savings in costs, but there is limited available data on its implementation in clinical practice. The aim of this trial was to determine whether early discharge in selected patients after STEMI is feasible and safe. METHODS: 151 patients with STEMI successfully treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of low risk were randomly assigned to two groups on a 1:1 ratio: early (within 48-72 h of admission) and standard (after 72 h) discharge. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, stroke, unplanned rehospitalization, repeated target vessel revascularization and stent thrombosis at 90 days after discharge. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT02023983). RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 5 patients in the early group and 6 in the standard group (6.6% vs. 8.0%, P=0.765). There were no significant differences in the incidence of individual components of the primary end point at 90 days. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the intervention group (60.8 ± 8.5 vs. 92.1 ± 12.1 h, P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study confirms that early discharge within 48-72 h in selected low risk patients after STEMI treated with successful primary PCI is feasible and safe, with outcomes comparable to the later discharge. This strategy applies to more than a quarter of all STEMI patients.

Reperfusion after pulmonary embolism - long-term follow-up, risk factors, clinical impact.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Thromboembolic disease is the third most common cardiovascular disorder and deep vein thrombosis carries the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE). Questions related to reperfusion after PE remain, especially risk factors. Incomplete reperfusion after PE is closely related to the development of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. The aim of this study was to determine the relation between reperfusion after PE in the long term over a period of 24 months, laboratory results and clinical risk factors found during the initial PE event. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 85 consecutive patients with a first episode of acute PE, diagnosed at 4 cardiology clinics, were followed up using clinical evaluation, scintigraphy and echocardiography (6, 12 and 24 months after the PE. 35 patients were in the low risk category (41%), 42 (49%) in the intermediate risk group and 8 (9%) in the high risk category. RESULTS: Perfusion defects persisted in 20 patients (26%) after 6 months, in 19 patients (25%) after 12 months and in 14 patients (19%) after 24 months. The incidence was more frequent in older patients, with more serious (higher risk) PE, increased right ventricular internal diameter during the initial episode, and more significant tricuspid insufficiency in the initial echocardiography. Notably, higher hemoglobin levels were also shown as a significant risk factor. The presence of perfusion defects after 24 months correlated with a concurrent higher pulmonary pressure but not with either patient function or adverse events (recurrence of PE, re-hospitalization or bleeding). In 3 cases (4% of patients), long-term echocardiographic evidence of pulmonary hypertension was detected. CONCLUSION: Even after 24 months from acute PE with adequate anticoagulation treatment, incomplete reperfusion was found in 19% of patients with a corresponding risk of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease and hypertension.

1-Year Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Primary Angioplasty for Myocardial Infarction Treated With Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor.

BACKGROUND: Early outcomes of patients in the PRAGUE-18 (Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction) study did not find any significant differences between 2 potent P2Y12 inhibitors. OBJECTIVES: The 1-year follow-up of the PRAGUE-18 study focused on: 1) a comparison of efficacy and safety between prasugrel and ticagrelor; and 2) the risk of major ischemic events related to an economically motivated post-discharge switch to clopidogrel. METHODS: A total of 1,230 patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor with an intended treatment duration of 12 months. The combined endpoint was cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke at 1 year. Because patients had to cover the costs of study medication after hospital discharge, some patients decided to switch to clopidogrel. RESULTS: The endpoint occurred in 6.6% of prasugrel patients and in 5.7% of ticagrelor patients (hazard ratio: 1.167; 95% confidence interval: 0.742 to 1.835; p = 0.503). No significant differences were found in: cardiovascular death (3.3% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.769), MI (3.0% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.611), stroke (1.1% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.423), all-cause death (4.7% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.654), definite stent thrombosis (1.1% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.535), all bleeding (10.9% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.999), and TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) major bleeding (0.9% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.754). The percentage of patients who switched to clopidogrel for economic reasons was 34.1% (n = 216) for prasugrel and 44.4% (n = 265) for ticagrelor (p = 0.003). Patients who were economically motivated to switch to clopidogrel had (compared with patients who continued the study medications) a lower risk of major cardiovascular events; however, they also had lower ischemic risk. CONCLUSIONS: Prasugrel and ticagrelor are similarly effective during the first year after MI. Economically motivated early post-discharge switches to clopidogrel were not associated with an increased risk of ischemic events. (Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction [PRAGUE-18]; NCT02808767).

Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Multicenter Randomized PRAGUE-18 Study.

BACKGROUND: No randomized head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel has been published in the 7 years since the higher efficacy of these newer P2Y12 inhibitors were first demonstrated relative to clopidogrel. METHODS: This academic study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in acute myocardial infarction treated with primary or immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 1230 patients were randomly assigned across 14 sites to either prasugrel or ticagrelor, which was initiated before percutaneous coronary intervention. Nearly 4% were in cardiogenic shock, and 5.2% were on mechanical ventilation. The primary end point was defined as death, reinfarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, stroke, or serious bleeding requiring transfusion or prolonging hospitalization at 7 days (to reflect primarily the in-hospital phase). This analysis presents data from the first 30 days (key secondary end point). The total follow-up will be 1 year for all patients and will be completed in 2017. RESULTS: The study was prematurely terminated for futility. The occurrence of the primary end point did not differ between groups receiving prasugrel and ticagrelor (4.0% and 4.1%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.73; P=0.939). No significant difference was found in any of the components of the primary end point. The occurrence of key secondary end point within 30 days, composed of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke, did not show any significant difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor (2.7% and 2.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-2.15; P=0.864). CONCLUSIONS: This head-to-head comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor does not support the hypothesis that one is more effective or safer than the other in preventing ischemic and bleeding events in the acute phase of myocardial infarction treated with a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy. The observed rates of major outcomes were similar but with broad confidence intervals around the estimates. These interesting observations need to be confirmed in a larger trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02808767.