Search

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with left main coronary artery (LM) stenosis in whom treatment strategy was based on the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). Background The overall safety of iFR to guide revascularization decision making in patients with stable coronary artery disease has been established. However, no study has examined the safety of deferral of revascularization of LM disease on the basis of iFR. Methods This multicenter observational study included 314 patients in whom LM stenosis was deferred (n = 163 [51.9%]) or revascularized (n = 151 [48.1%]) according to the iFR cutoff ≤0.89. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The secondary endpoints were each individual component of the primary endpoint and also cardiac death. Results At a median follow-up period of 30 months, the primary endpoint occurred in 15 patients (9.2%) in the deferred group and 22 patients (14.6%) in the revascularized group (hazard ratio: 1.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.75 to 2.81; p = 0.26), indicating no evidence of a significant difference between the 2 groups. For the secondary endpoints, findings in the iFR-based deferral and revascularization groups were as follows: all-cause death, 3.7% versus 4.6%; cardiac death, 1.2% versus 2.0%; nonfatal myocardial infarction, 2.5% versus 5.3%; and target lesion revascularization, 4.3% versus 5.3% (p > 0.05 for all). Conclusions Deferral of revascularization of LM stenosis on the basis of iFR appears to be safe, with similar long-term outcomes to those in patients in whom LM revascularization was performed according to iFR values.

Background Patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction commonly have multi-vessel coronary artery disease. After the culprit artery is treated, the optimal treatment strategy for the residual disease is not yet defined. Large observational studies suggest that treatment of residual disease should be deferred but smaller randomised controlled trials (RCTs) suggest multi-vessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PPCI) at the time of STEMI is safe. We examine if allocation bias of high-risk patients could explain the conflicting results between observational studies and RCTs and aim to resolve the paradox between the two. Methods A meta-analysis of registries comparing culprit-only PPCI to MV-PPCI was performed. We then determined if high-risk patients were more likely to be allocated to MV-PPCI. A meta-regression was performed to determine if any allocation bias of high-risk patients could explain the difference in outcomes between therapies. Results 47,717 patients (19 studies) were eligible. MV-PPCI had higher mortality than culprit-only PPCI (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.24, p=0.03). However, higher risk patients were more likely to be allocated to MV-PPCI (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.78, p=0.0005). When this was accounted for, there was no difference in mortality between culprit-only PPCI and MV-PPCI (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41, p=0.94). Discussion Clinicians preferentially allocate higher-risk patients to MV-PPCI at the time of STEMI, resulting in observational studies reporting higher mortality with this strategy. When this is accounted for, these large observational studies in ‘real world' patients support the conclusion of the smaller RCTs in the field: MV-PPCI has equivalent mortality to a culprit-only approach.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the therapeutic benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been challenged in patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCD). OBJECTIVES: The authors examined the impact of PCI on exercise responses in the coronary circulation, the microcirculation, and systemic hemodynamics in patients with SCD. METHODS: A total of 21 patients (mean age 60.3 ± 8.4 years) with SCD and single-vessel coronary stenosis underwent cardiac catheterization. Pre-PCI, patients exercised on a supine ergometer until rate-limiting angina or exhaustion. Simultaneous trans-stenotic coronary pressure-flow measurements were made throughout exercise. Post-PCI, this process was repeated. Physiological parameters, rate-limiting symptoms, and exercise performance were compared between pre-PCI and post-PCI exercise cycles. RESULTS: PCI reduced ischemia as documented by fractional flow reserve value (pre-PCI 0.59 ± 0.18 to post-PCI 0.91 ± 0.07), instantaneous wave-free ratio value (pre-PCI 0.61 ± 0.27 to post-PCI 0.96 ± 0.05) and coronary flow reserve value (pre-PCI 1.7 ± 0.7 to post-PCI 3.1 ± 1.0; p < 0.001 for all). PCI increased peak-exercise average peak coronary flow velocity (p < 0.0001), coronary perfusion pressure (distal coronary pressure; p < 0.0001), systolic blood pressure (p = 0.01), accelerating wave energy (p < 0.001), and myocardial workload (rate-pressure product; p < 0.01). These changes observed immediately following PCI resulted from the abolition of stenosis resistance (p < 0.0001). PCI was also associated with an immediate improvement in exercise time (+67 s; 95% confidence interval: 31 to 102 s; p