Functional (Re)Development of SYNTAX Score II 2020: Predictive Performance and Risk Assessment.

The present study investigates the prognostic value of the Syntax Score II 2020 corrected for flow-limiting lesions and its ability to better address treatment by benefit prediction among patients with left main or multivessel disease. We analyzed 1274 patients from the HALE-BOPP cohort and integrated the Syntax Score II 2020 with the result of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) evaluation. Absolute risk difference (ARD) between surgical and percutaneous revascularization was calculated for anatomic and functional Syntax Score II 2020 predicted mortality. The ARD allowed to stratify the population into two large categories: "coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) better" with ARD ≥ 4.5% and "CABG-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) equipoise" with ARD < 4.5%. The mean global anatomical Syntax Score was 15.5 ± 9.2, whereas the functional one was 9.5 ± 10 (p < 0.01). Using the anatomic Syntax Score II 2020, 881 patients had a CABG-PCI equipoise. This number increased to 1041 after considering only flow-limiting lesions by FFR (p < 0.001); therefore, 40% of CABG better patients were reclassified within the CABG-PCI equipoise category. Kaplan-Maier curves showed similar actual survival rates for patients originally with CABG-PCI equipoise and those reclassified, in both cases higher than those from CABG better patients (p < 0.01). The integration between Syntax Score II 2020 and physiology is feasible, and merging clinical, anatomic and functional data allows for better risk prediction and therapeutic guidance.

Clinical Outcome of FFR-Guided Revascularization Strategy of Coronary Lesions: The HALE-BOPP Study.

Background: Recently, questions around the efficacy and effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) have arisen in various clinical settings. Methods: The Clinical Outcome of FFR-guided Revascularization Strategy of Coronary Lesions (HALE-BOPP) study is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, international prospective study enrolling patients who underwent FFR measurement on at least one vessel. In accordance with the decision-making workflow and treatment, the vessels were classified in three subgroups: (i) angio-revascularized, (ii) FFR-revascularized, (iii) FFR-deferred. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of target vessel failure (TVF, cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization). The analysis was carried out at vessel- and patient-level. Results: 1305 patients with 2422 diseased vessels fulfilled the criteria for the present analysis. Wire-related pitfalls and transient adenosine-related side effects occurred in 0.8% (95% CI: 0.4%-1.4%) and 3.3% (95% CI: 2.5%-4.3%) of cases, respectively. In FFR-deferred vessels, the overall incidence rate of TVF was 0.024 (95% CI: 0.019-0.031) lesion/year. After a median follow-up of 3.6 years, the occurrence of TVF was 6%, 7% and 11.7% in FFR-deferred, FFR-revascularized and angio-revascularized vessels, respectively. Compared to angio-revascularized vessels, FFR-guided vessels (both FFR-revascularized and FFR-deferred vessels) showed a lower TVF incidence rate lesion/year (0.029, 95% CI: 0.024-0.034 vs. 0.049, 95% CI: 0.040-0.061 respectively, p = 0.0001). The result was consistent after correction for confounding factors and across subgroups of clinical interest. The patient-level analysis confirmed the lower occurrence of TVF in negative-FFR vs. positive-FFR subgroups. Conclusions: In a large prospective observational study, an FFR-based strategy for the deferral of coronary lesions is a reliable and safe tool, associated with good outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03079739.

Acetylcholine Use in Modern Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The use of acetylcholine for the diagnosis of vasospastic angina is recommended by international guidelines. However, its intracoronary use is still off-label due to the absence of safety studies. We aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature to identify adverse events related to the intracoronary administration of acetylcholine for vasoreactivity testing to fill this gap. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a systematic review of observational studies and randomized controlled trials dealing with the intracoronary administration of acetylcholine. Articles were searched in MEDLINE (PubMed) using the MeSH strategy. Three independent reviewers determined whether the studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 434 articles were selected. Data concerning clinical characteristics, study population, acetylcholine dosage, and adverse effects were retrieved from the articles. Overall, 71,566 patients were included, of which only 382 (0.5%) developed one adverse event, and there were no fatal events reported (0%). CONCLUSIONS: Intracoronary administration of acetylcholine in the setting of coronary spasm provocation testing is safe and plays a central role in the evaluation of coronary vasomotion disorders, making it worthy of becoming a part of clinical practice in all cardiac catheterization laboratories.