Search

Identifying the infarct-related artery (IRA) in a non-ST-segment-elevation acute myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) can be very challenging, particularly in a hospital that cannot perform intracoronary imaging due to certain limitations. This is because, by angiography, most patients present with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD), diffuse disease, or non-significant CAD. We present a case of a 60-year-old female patient presented with substernal chest pain and palpitations of 6 h duration. The first hospital contact 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) showed ventricular tachycardia (VT) with unstable hemodynamics, after stabilization patient was transported to the catheterization laboratory for immediate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). With a clue of VT morphology, post-converted ECG, and coronary angiography, the patient successfully underwent PCI in the left circumflex artery., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2024 Saudi Heart Association.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None declared.

Background Despite the benefit of culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the CULPRIT-SHOCK (Culprit Lesion Only PCI Versus Multi-vessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock) trial, the optimal revascularization strategy for refractory cardiogenic shock (CS) requiring mechanical circulatory support devices remains controversial. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between the culprit-only and immediate multivessel PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by CS who underwent venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before revascularization. Methods and Results This study included patient-pooled data from the RESCUE (Retrospective and Prospective Observational Study to Investigate Clinical Outcomes and Efficacy of Left Ventricular Assist Devices for Korean Patients With Cardiogenic Shock) and SMC-ECMO (Samsung Medical Center-Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation) registries. A total of 315 patients with acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease who underwent venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before revascularization attributable to refractory CS were included in this analysis. The study population was classified into culprit-only versus immediate multivessel PCI according to nonculprit lesion treatment strategies. The primary end point was 30-day mortality or renal-replacement therapy, and the key secondary end point was 12-month follow-up mortality. Among the study population, 175 (55.6%) underwent culprit-only PCI and 140 (44.4%) underwent immediate multivessel PCI. Compared with culprit-only PCI, immediate multivessel PCI was associated with significantly lower risks of 30-day mortality or renal-replacement therapy (68.0% versus 54.3%; P =0.018) and all-cause mortality during 12 months of follow-up (59.5% versus 47.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.689 [95% CI, 0.506-0.939]; P =0.018) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and CS who underwent venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before revascularization. These results were also consistent in the 99 pairs of propensity score-matched population (60.6% versus 43.6%; HR, 0.622 [95% CI, 0.420-0.922]; P =0.018). Conclusions Among patients with acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease complicated by advanced CS requiring venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before revascularization, immediate multivessel PCI was associated with lower incidences of 30-day mortality or renal replacement therapy and 12-month follow-up mortality, compared with culprit-only PCI. Registration Information clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02985008.

Introduction: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with a P2Y12 inhibitor added to aspirin is considered the standard of care for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI). Prasugrel and ticagrelor are commonly used P2Y12 inhibitors, and a few head-to-head randomized control trials (RCTs) have been performed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of these RCTs to compare the efficacy and adverse effects between these two agents when used in patients with ACS undergoing PCI., Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane library for RCTs comparing prasugrel to ticagrelor in ACS. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and all bleeding event. Estimates were calculated as random effects risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: Six trials with 6807 patients were included. There were no significant difference of MACE (RR 0.93; 95% CI [0.72-1.20]; p = 0.59; I 2  = 26%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.92; 95% CI [0.73-1.17]; p = 0.51; I 2  = 0%), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI [0.75-1.31]; p = 0.96; I 2  = 0%), MI (RR 0.87; 95% CI [0.60-1.27]; p = 0.48; I 2  = 27%), stent thrombosis (RR 0.64; 95% CI [0.39-1.04]; p = 0.07; I 2  = 0%), major bleeding (RR 0.94; 95% CI [0.70-1.26]; p = 0.68; I 2  = 6%), and all bleeding event (RR 0.92; 95% CI [0.77-1.09]; p = 0.32; I 2  = 0%) for prasugrel compared with ticagrelor., Conclusion: There are no significant difference of MACE, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, stent thrombosis, and bleeding between prasugrel and ticagrelor when added to aspirin among patients with ACS undergoing PCI., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to compare outcomes of patients enrolled in the NCSI (National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative) trial who were treated using a revascularization strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of multivessel PCI (MV-PCI) versus culprit-vessel PCI (CV-PCI)., Background: In patients with multivessel disease who present with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS), intervening on the nonculprit vessel is controversial. There are conflicting published reports and lack of evidence, particularly in patients treated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS)., Methods: From July 2016 to December 2019, patients who presented with AMICS to 57 participating hospitals were included in this analysis. All patients were treated using a standard shock protocol emphasizing early MCS, revascularization, and invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) were analyzed according to whether CV-PCI or MV-PCI was undertaken during the index procedure., Results: Of 198 patients with MVCAD, 126 underwent MV-PCI (64%) and 72 underwent CV-PCI (36%). Demographics between the cohorts were similar with respect to age, sex, history of diabetes, prior PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting, and prior history of myocardial infarction. Patients who underwent MV-PCI had a trend toward more severe impairment of cardiac output and worse lactate clearance on presentation, and cardiac performance was significantly worse at 12 h. However, 24 h from PCI, the hemometabolic derangements were similar. Survival and rates of acute kidney injury were not significantly different between groups (69.8% MV-PCI vs. 65.3% CV-PCI; p = 0.51; and 29.9% vs. 34.2%; p = 0.64, respectively)., Conclusions: In patients with MVCAD presenting with AMICS treated with early MCS, revascularization of nonculprit lesions was associated with similar hospital survival and acute kidney injury when compared with culprit-only PCI. Selective nonculprit PCI can be safety performed in AMICS in patients supported with mechanical circulatory support., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the treatment of choice for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, efficacy of complete vs culprit only revascularization in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease remains unclear., Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, and Cochrane library. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, stroke, major bleeding, and contrast induced nephropathy. Estimates were calculated as random effects hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: Twelve trials with 7592 patients were included. There was a significantly lower risk of MACE [HR 0.61; 95% CI (0.43-0.60); p = 0.0009; I 2  = 72%], cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.74; 95% CI (0.56-0.99); p = 0.04; I 2  = 2%], and repeat revascularization [HR 0.43; 95% CI (0.31-0.59); p < 0.00001; I 2  = 67%] in patients treated with complete compared with culprit-only revascularization. There was no statistically significant difference in MI [HR 0.77; 95% CI (0.52-1.12); p = 0.17; I 2  = 49%], all-cause mortality [HR 0.86; 95% CI (0.65-1.13); p = 0.28; I 2  = 14%], heart failure [HR 0.82 95% CI (0.51-1.32); p = 0.42; I 2  = 26%], major bleeding [HR 1.07; 95% CI (0.66-1.75); p = 0.78; I 2  = 25%], stroke [HR 0.67; 95% CI (0.24-1.89); p = 0.45; I 2  = 54%], or contrast induced nephropathy, although higher contrast volumes were used in the complete revascularization group [HR 1.22; 95% CI (0.78-1.92); p = 0.39; I 2  = 0%]., Conclusion: Complete revascularization was associated with a significantly lower risk of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, and repeat revascularization compared with culprit-only revascularization. These results suggest complete revascularization with PCI following STEMI and multivessel disease should be considered., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To evaluate sex difference in culprit plaque features at optical coherence tomography (OCT) and major adverse cardiovascular events at follow-up. Patients and methods: We analyse data from the OCT-FORMIDABLE (OCT-Features Of moRphology, coMposItion anD instABility of culprit and pLaquE in acute coronary syndrome [ACS] patients) registry. A total of 285 patients (20%, 58 females) were included. Results:  Females with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction showed a longer ruptured area of the plaque (8.6 ± 7.6 vs 4.6 ± 5.4; p = 0.003) and a major necrotic core macrophage infiltration (43 vs 17%; p = 0.017). Females with non-ST segment elevation-ACS had less lipidic plaques (62 vs 80%; p = 0.04). No between-group sex differences in major adverse cardiovascular events emerged at follow-up (5 vs 9%; p = 0.88 in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction group and 19 vs 15%; p = 0.6 in non-ST segment elevation-ACS group). At multivariate analysis, female sex was not a major risk of plaque rupture (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.59, CI: 0.44-5.67; p = 0.48). Conclusion: Female sex seems to have no significant impact. ClincalTrial. gov registration number: NCT02486861.

Background: Our study aimed to compare three different percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) approaches: culprit-only (COR) and complete (CR) revascularization - categorizing into immediate (ICR) or staged (SCR)., Methods: We searched 13 databases for randomized controlled trials. Articles were included if they compared at least two strategies. To have more studies in each analysis, an adjusted analysis was performed using person-years to incorporate follow-up durations and obtain pooled rate ratios (RR), with their corresponding 95% confidence interval., Results: Thirteen trials were included with a population of 2830 patients. COR significantly increased major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (adjusted RR 1.67, 95% CI: 1.27-2.19) and repeat revascularization (2.12, 1.67-2.69), which was driven by repeat PCI, without any difference in all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) compared to CR. When categorizing CR into SCR and ICR, the trend repeated with COR increased MACE (1.99, 1.53-2.6 for ICR), cardiovascular mortality (2.06, 1.07-3.96 for ICR), MI for ICR (1.72, 1.04-2.86), repeat revascularization and repeat PCI for both ICR and SCR. Non-cardiovascular mortality, stroke, nephropathy, re-hospitalization, stent thrombosis and bleeding were similar among all approaches., Conclusions: In MVD-STEMI patients, CR is better than COR in terms of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, repeat revascularization with no difference in safety outcomes. There was a trend towards to a reduction of cardiovascular mortality and MI in ICR compared to SCR when each matched with COR; even though there is no statistically significant difference between ICR and SCR when compared together., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), current guidelines discourage treatment of the non-culprit lesions at the time of the primary intervention. Latest trials have challenged this strategy suggesting benefit of early complete revascularization. We performed a Bayesian multiple treatment network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in STEMI on culprit-only intervention (CO) versus different timing multivessel revascularization, including immediate (IM), same hospitalization (SH) or later staged (ST)., Methods: Outcome parameters were pooled with a random-effects model. For multiple-treatment meta-analysis, a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method was used., Results: Eight RCTs involving 2077 patients were identified. ST and IM revascularization was associated with a decrease in major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) compared to culprit-only approach (risk ratio [RR]: 0.43 credible interval [CrI]: 0.22-0.77 and RR: 0.36 CrI: 0.24-0.54, respectively). IM was superior to SH (RR: 0.49 CrI: 0.29-0.80). With regards to myocardial infarction IM was superior to SH (RR: 0.18 CrI: 0.02-0.99). The posterior probability of being the best choice of treatment regarding the frequency of MACEs was 71.2% for IM, 28.5% for ST, 0.3% for SH and 0.05% for culprit-only approach., Conclusions: Results from RCTs indicate that immediate or staged revascularization of non-culprit lesions reduces major adverse events in patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Differences in MACEs suggest superiority of the immediate or staged intervention; however, further randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal timing of revascularization of the non-culprit lesions.