QFR for the Revascularization of Nonculprit Vessels in MI Patients: Insights From the FIRE Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) in the treatment of nonculprit vessels of patients with myocardial infarction (MI) is a topic of ongoing discussion. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the predictive capability of QFR for adverse events and its noninferiority compared to wire-based functional assessment in nonculprit vessels of MI patients. METHODS: The FIRE (Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients With Multivessel Disease) trial randomized 1,445 older MI patients to culprit-only (n = 725) or physiology-guided complete revascularization (n = 720). In the culprit-only arm, angiographic projections of nonculprit vessels were prospectively collected, centrally reviewed for QFR computation, and associated with endpoints. In the complete revascularization arm, endpoints were compared between nonculprit vessels investigated with QFR or wire-based functional assessment. The primary endpoint was the vessel-oriented composite endpoint (VOCE) at 1 year. RESULTS: QFR was measured on 903 nonculprit vessels from 685 patients in the culprit-only arm. Overall, 366 (40.5%) nonculprit vessels showed a QFR value ≤0.80, with a significantly higher incidence of VOCEs (22.1% vs 7.1%; P < 0.001). QFR ≤0.80 emerged as an independent predictor of VOCEs (HR: 2.79; 95% CI: 1.64-4.75). In the complete arm, QFR was used in 320 (35.2%) nonculprit vessels to guide revascularization. When compared with propensity-matched nonculprit vessels in which treatment was guided by wire-based functional assessment, no significant difference was observed (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.28-1.15) in VOCEs. CONCLUSIONS: This prespecified subanalysis of the FIRE trial provides evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of QFR-guided interventions for the treatment of nonculprit vessels in MI patients. (Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients With Multivessel Disease [FIRE]; NCT03772743).

Complete or Culprit-Only PCI in Older Patients with Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of complete revascularization in older patients (≥75 years of age) with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease remains unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned older patients with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease who were undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion to receive either physiology-guided complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions or to receive no further revascularization. Functionally significant nonculprit lesions were identified either by pressure wire or angiography. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any revascularization at 1 year. The key secondary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Safety was assessed as a composite of contrast-associated acute kidney injury, stroke, or bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 1445 patients underwent randomization (720 to receive complete revascularization and 725 to receive culprit-only revascularization). The median age of the patients was 80 years (interquartile range, 77 to 84); 528 patients (36.5%) were women, and 509 (35.2%) were admitted for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A primary-outcome event occurred in 113 patients (15.7%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 152 patients (21.0%) in the culprit-only group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.93; P = 0.01). Cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction occurred in 64 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 98 patients (13.5%) in the culprit-only group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88). The safety outcome did not appear to differ between the groups (22.5% vs. 20.4%; P = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who were 75 years of age or older with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, those who underwent physiology-guided complete revascularization had a lower risk of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 1 year than those who received culprit-lesion-only PCI. (Funded by Consorzio Futuro in Ricerca and others; FIRE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03772743.).

Physiology-guided revascularization versus optimal medical therapy of nonculprit lesions in elderly patients with myocardial infarction: Rationale and design of the FIRE trial.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial infarction (MI) in elderly patients is associated with unfavorable prognosis, and it is becoming an increasingly prevalent condition. The prognosis of elderly patients is equally impaired in ST-segment elevation (STE) or non-STE (NSTE), and it is markedly worsened by the common presence of multivessel disease (MVD). Given the limited evidence available for elderly patients, it has not yet been established whether, as for younger patients, a complete revascularization strategy in MI patients with MVD should be advocated. We present the design of a dedicated study that will address this research gap. METHODS AND DESIGN: The FIRE trial is a prospective, randomized, international, multicenter, open-label study with blinded adjudicated evaluation of outcomes. Patients aged 75 years and older, with MI (either STE or NSTE), MVD at coronary artery angiography, and a clear culprit lesion will be randomized to culprit-only treatment or to physiology-guided complete revascularization. The primary end point will be the patient-oriented composite end point of all-cause death, any MI, any stroke, and any revascularization at 1 year. The key secondary end point will be the composite of cardiovascular death and MI. Quality of life and physical performance will be evaluated as well. All components of the primary and key secondary outcome will be tested also at 3 and 5 years. The sample size for the study is 1,400 patients. IMPLICATIONS: The FIRE trial will provide evidence on whether a specific revascularization strategy should be applied to elderly patients presenting MI and MVD to improve their clinical outcomes.