No abstract

Aims This meta-analysis aims to quantify the association of reduced coronary flow with all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) across a broad range of patient groups and pathologies. Methods and results We systematically identified all studies between 1 January 2000 and 1 August 2020, where coronary flow was measured and clinical outcomes were reported. The endpoints were all-cause mortality and MACE. Estimates of effect were calculated from published hazard ratios (HRs) using a random-effects model. Seventy-nine studies with a total of 59 740 subjects were included. Abnormal coronary flow reserve (CFR) was associated with a higher incidence of all-cause mortality [HR: 3.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.39–5.97] and a higher incidence of MACE (HR 3.42, 95% CI: 2.92–3.99). Each 0.1 unit reduction in CFR was associated with a proportional increase in mortality (per 0.1 CFR unit HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04–1.29) and MACE (per 0.1 CFR unit HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04–1.11). In patients with isolated coronary microvascular dysfunction, an abnormal CFR was associated with a higher incidence of mortality (HR: 5.44, 95% CI: 3.78–7.83) and MACE (HR: 3.56, 95% CI: 2.14–5.90). Abnormal CFR was also associated with a higher incidence of MACE in patients with acute coronary syndromes (HR: 3.76, 95% CI: 2.35–6.00), heart failure (HR: 6.38, 95% CI: 1.95–20.90), heart transplant (HR: 3.32, 95% CI: 2.34–4.71), and diabetes mellitus (HR: 7.47, 95% CI: 3.37–16.55). Conclusion Reduced coronary flow is strongly associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and MACE across a wide range of pathological processes. This finding supports recent recommendations that coronary flow should be measured more routinely in clinical practice, to target aggressive vascular risk modification for individuals at higher risk.

Background: Specific algorithms for use of optical coherence tomography (OCT) to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are scarce. Also, the relative benefits of intravascular imaging guidance have not been tested against an optimized angiography-guided PCI strategy. In iSIGHT (Optical Coherence Tomography Versus Intravascular Ultrasound and Angiography to Guide Percutaneous Coronary Interventions), we aimed to investigate whether OCT-guided PCI achieves noninferior stent expansion compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance and if both imaging modalities lead to superior stent expansion compared with an optimized angiography-based strategy. Methods: Patients ≥18 years old undergoing PCI for ≥1 lesion in native coronaries of 2.25 to 4.00 mm in diameter were randomized 1:1:1 to OCT-, IVUS-, or angiography-guided PCI. Predetermined guidance protocols were applied in all groups. An external elastic membrane–based protocol was used for stent sizing by OCT and IVUS. The primary end point was noninferiority of stent expansion (minimum stent area ≥90% of the average reference lumen area), measured by post-PCI OCT, in OCT-guided versus IVUS-guided PCI (noninferiority margin, 6.5%). Results: One hundred fifty-one patients (156 lesions) were randomly allocated to OCT (51 lesions [32.7%]), IVUS (52 lesions [33.3%]), or angiography (53 lesions [34.0%]). Stent expansion with OCT guidance (98.01±16.14%) was noninferior to IVUS (91.69±15.75%; 1-sided lower 95% CI, 0.55 mm 2 ; P non-inferiority <0.001) and superior to angiography (90.53±14.84%, P =0.041). IVUS and angiography obtained similar stent expansions ( P =0.921). Stent edge dissection and periprocedural complication rates were not significantly different among the groups. Conclusions: Stent expansion with OCT guidance using a dedicated external elastic membrane–based sizing strategy was noninferior to that achieved with IVUS and superior to an optimized angiographic strategy. REGISTRATION: URL: plataformabrasil.saude.gov.br ; Unique identifier: 69968417.8.0000.5462.

Background For patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction ( STEMI ) and multivessel coronary artery disease, the optimal treatment of the non‐infarct‐related artery has been controversial. This up‐to‐date meta‐analysis focusing on individual clinical end points was performed to further evaluate the benefit of complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease. Methods and Results We systematically identified all randomized trials comparing complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention to culprit‐only revascularization for multivessel disease in STEMI and performed a random‐effects meta‐analysis. The primary efficacy end point was cardiovascular death analyzed on an intention‐to‐treat basis. Secondary end points included all‐cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. Ten studies (7542 patients) were included: 3664 patients were randomized to complete revascularization and 3878 to culprit‐only revascularization. Across all patients, complete revascularization was superior to culprit‐only revascularization for reduction in the risk of cardiovascular death (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI , 0.47–0.98; P =0.037; I 2 =21.8%) and reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction (RR, 0.65; 95% CI , 0.54–0.79; P <0.0001; I 2 =0.0%). Complete revascularization also significantly reduced the risk of unplanned revascularization (RR, 0.37; 95% CI , 0.28–0.51; P <0.0001; I 2 =64.7%). The difference in all‐cause mortality with percutaneous coronary intervention was not statistically significant (RR, 0.85; 95% CI , 0.69–1.04; P =0.108; I 2 =0.0%). Conclusions For patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention significantly improves hard clinical outcomes including cardiovascular death and myocardial infarction. These data have implications for clinical practice guidelines regarding recommendations for complete revascularization following STEMI .

No abstract