Acute coronary syndromes and multivessel coronary artery disease.

Patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease are frequently encountered during clinical practice and those patients are at higher risk of subsequent acute cardiovascular events. In patients presenting with both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, complete revascularization is associated with decreased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. Nevertheless, the optimal timing of the intervention and treatment modality are still in discussions. Furthermore, non-culprit lesions assessment based on stenosis severity, either on visual or on functional evaluation, may not provide information about vulnerable plaques prone to thrombosis. Therefore, insights from intracoronary imaging could further identify high-risk plaque and patients at higher risk of future adverse events. This article aims to provide an overview of current guideline recommendations, envisioning future perspectives for the treatment of patients with ACS and multivessel disease.

Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Coronary Revascularization: Evidence from Randomized and Non-Randomized Studies.

Simple visual estimation of coronary angiography is limited by several factors that can hinder the proper classification of coronary lesions. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the most widely used tool to perform a physiological evaluation of coronary stenoses. Compared to isolated angiography, FFR has been demonstrated to be more effective in selecting those lesions associated with myocardial ischemia and, accordingly, impaired outcomes. At the same time, deferring coronary intervention in those lesions that do not show ischemic FFR values has proven safe and not associated with adverse events. Despite a major randomized clinical trial (RCT) and several non-randomized studies showing that FFR-guided revascularization could be superior to isolated angiography in improving clinical outcomes, subsequent RCTs have reported conflicting results. In this review, we summarize the principles behind FFR and the data currently available in the literature, highlighting the main differences between randomized and non-randomized studies that investigated this topic.