Search

Background: Patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary disease have a worse prognosis compared with individuals with single-vessel disease. We aimed to study the clinical outcome of patients with STEMI treated with fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularisation versus treatment of the infarct-related artery only.Methods: We undertook an open-label, randomised controlled trial at two university hospitals in Denmark. Patients presenting with STEMI who had one or more clinically significant coronary stenosis in addition to the lesion in the infarct-related artery were included. After successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery, patients were randomly allocated (in a 1:1 ratio) either no further invasive treatment or complete FFR-guided revascularisation before discharge. Randomisation was done electronically via a web-based system in permuted blocks of varying size by the clinician who did the primary PCI. All patients received best medical treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal reinfarction, and ischaemia-driven revascularization of lesions in non-infarct-related arteries and was assessed when the last enrolled patient had been followed up for 1 year. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01960933.Findings: From March, 2011, to February, 2014, we enrolled 627 patients to the trial; 313 were allocated no further invasive treatment after primary PCI of the infarct-related artery only and 314 were assigned complete revascularization guided by FFR values. Median follow-up was 27 months (range 12–44 months). Events comprising the primary endpoint were recorded in 68 (22%) patients who had PCI of the infarct-related artery only and in 40 (13%) patients who had complete revascularisation (hazard ratio 0∙56, 95% CI 0∙38–0∙83; p=0∙004).Interpretation: In patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularisation guided by FFR measurements significantly reduces the risk of future events compared with no further invasive intervention after primary PCI. This effect is driven by significantly fewer repeat revascularisations, because all-cause mortality and non-fatal reinfarction did not differ between groups. Thus, to avoid repeat revascularisation, patients can safely have all their lesions treated during the index admission. Future studies should clarify whether complete revascularization should be done acutely during the index procedure or at later time and whether it has an effect on hard endpoints.Funding: Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation and Danish Council for Strategic Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary disease have a worse prognosis compared with individuals with single-vessel disease. We aimed to study the clinical outcome of patients with STEMI treated with fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularisation versus treatment of the infarct-related artery only. Methods We undertook an open-label, randomised controlled trial at two university hospitals in Denmark. Patients presenting with STEMI who had one or more clinically significant coronary stenosis in addition to the lesion in the infarct-related artery were included. After successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery, patients were randomly allocated (in a 1:1 ratio) either no further invasive treatment or complete FFR-guided revascularisation before discharge. Randomisation was done electronically via a web-based system in permuted blocks of varying size by the clinician who did the primary PCI. All patients received best medical treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal reinfarction, and ischaemia-driven revascularisation of lesions in non-infarct-related arteries and was assessed when the last enrolled patient had been followed up for 1 year. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01960933. Findings From March, 2011, to February, 2014, we enrolled 627 patients to the trial; 313 were allocated no further invasive treatment after primary PCI of the infarct-related artery only and 314 were assigned complete revascularisation guided by FFR values. Median follow-up was 27 months (range 12–44 months). Events comprising the primary endpoint were recorded in 68 (22%) patients who had PCI of the infarct-related artery only and in 40 (13%) patients who had complete revascularisation (hazard ratio 0·56, 95% CI 0·38–0·83; p=0·004). Interpretation In patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularisation guided by FFR measurements significantly reduces the risk of future events compared with no further invasive intervention after primary PCI. This effect is driven by significantly fewer repeat revascularisations, because all-cause mortality and non-fatal reinfarction did not differ between groups. Thus, to avoid repeat revascularisation, patients can safely have all their lesions treated during the index admission. Future studies should clarify whether complete revascularisation should be done acutely during the index procedure or at later time and whether it has an effect on hard endpoints. INSET: Research in context.. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: No medium-term data are available on the random comparison between everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and everolimus-eluting metallic stents. The study aims to demonstrate two mechanistic properties of the bioresorbable scaffold: increase in luminal dimensions as a result of recovered vasomotion of the scaffolded vessel.Methods: The ABSORB II trial is a prospective, randomised, active-controlled, single-blind, parallel two-group, multicentre clinical trial. We enrolled eligible patients aged 18-85 years with evidence of myocardial ischaemia and one or two de-novo native lesions in different epicardial vessels. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) to receive treatment with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) or treatment with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Randomisation was stratified by diabetes status and number of planned target lesions. At 3 year follow-up, the primary endpoint was superiority of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold versus the Xience metallic stent in angiographic vasomotor reactivity after administration of intracoronary nitrate. The co-primary endpoint is the non-inferiority of angiographic late luminal loss. For the endpoint of vasomotion, the comparison was tested using a two-sided t test. For the endpoint of late luminal loss, non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided asymptotic test, against a non-inferiority margin of 0·14 mm. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01425281.Findings: Between Nov 28, 2011, and June 4, 2013, we enrolled 501 patients and randomly assigned them to the Absorb group (335 patients, 364 lesions) or the Xience group (166 patients, 182 lesions). The vasomotor reactivity at 3 years was not statistically different (Absorb group 0·047 mm [SD 0·109] vs Xience group 0·056 mm [0·117]; psuperiority=0·49), whereas the late luminal loss was larger in the Absorb group than in the Xience group (0·37 mm [0·45] vs 0·25 mm [0·25]; pnon-inferiority=0·78). This difference in luminal dimension was confirmed by intravascular ultrasound assessment of the minimum lumen area (4·32 mm2 [SD 1·48] vs 5·38 mm2 [1·51]; p<0·0001). The secondary endpoints of patient-oriented composite endpoint, Seattle Angina Questionnaire score, and exercise testing were not statistically different in both groups. However, a device-oriented composite endpoint was significantly different between the Absorb group and the Xience group (10% vs 5%, hazard ratio 2·17 [95% CI 1·01-4·70]; log-rank test p=0·0425), mainly driven by target vessel myocardial infarction (6% vs 1%; p=0·0108), including peri-procedural myocardial infarction (4% vs 1%; p=0·16).Interpretation: The trial did not meet its co-primary endpoints of superior vasomotor reactivity and non-inferior late luminal loss for the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold with respect to the metallic stent, which was found to have significantly lower late luminal loss than the Absorb scaffold. A higher rate of device-oriented composite endpoint due to target vessel myocardial infarction, including peri-procedural myocardial infarction, was observed in the Absorb group. The patient-oriented composite endpoint, anginal status, and exercise testing, were not statistically different between both devices at 3 years. Future studies should investigate the clinical impact of accurate intravascular imaging in sizing the device and in optimising the scaffold implantation. The benefit and need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy after bioresorbable scaffold implantation could also become a topic for future clinical research.Funding: Abbott Vascular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite successful treatment of the culprit artery lesion by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation, thrombotic embolisation occurs in some cases, which impairs the prognosis of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of deferred stent implantation versus standard PCI in patients with STEMI.Methods: We did this open-label, randomised controlled trial at four primary PCI centres in Denmark. Eligible patients (aged >18 years) had acute onset symptoms lasting 12 h or less, and ST-segment elevation of 0·1 mV or more in at least two or more contiguous electrocardiographic leads or newly developed left bundle branch block. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an electronic web-based system with permuted block sizes of two to six, to receive either standard primary PCI with immediate stent implantation or deferred stent implantation 48 h after the index procedure if a stabilised flow could be obtained in the infarct-related artery. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospital admission for heart failure, recurrent infarction, and any unplanned revascularisation of the target vessel within 2 years' follow-up. Patients, investigators, and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01435408.Findings: Between March 1, 2011, and Feb 28, 2014, we randomly assigned 1215 patients to receive either standard PCI (n=612) or deferred stent implantation (n=603). Median follow-up time was 42 months (IQR 33-49). Events comprising the primary endpoint occurred in 109 (18%) patients who had standard PCI and in 105 (17%) patients who had deferred stent implantation (hazard ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·76-1·29; p=0·92). Procedure-related myocardial infarction, bleeding requiring transfusion or surgery, contrast-induced nephopathy, or stroke occurred in 28 (5%) patients in the conventional PCI group versus 27 (4%) patients in the deferred stent implantation group, with no significant differences between groups.Interpretation: In patients with STEMI, routine deferred stent implantation did not reduce the occurrence of death, heart failure, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularisation compared with conventional PCI. Results from ongoing randomised trials might shed further light on the concept of deferred stenting in this patient population.Funding: Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, and Danish Council for Strategic Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents reply by the author on comments made by researchers Karl Isaaz and Antoine Gerbay on their article assessing the effect of deferred stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction..