Search

Recent trials and meta-analysis have indicated that complete revascularization (CR) of multivessel coronary disease is beneficial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) compared to culprit-only intervention. However, the optimal timing of CR remains unclear. We aimed to analyze the optimal timing of CR in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease by performing an updated network meta-analysis using the recent largest randomized controlled trial. PUBMED and EMBASE were searched through October 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing CR and culprit-only revascularization. A random-effect network meta-analysis comparing three arms (same-sitting [during the index procedure] CR versus staged CR versus culprit-only) and 4 arms (same-sitting CR versus staged CR [in-hospital] versus staged CR [out-hospital] versus culprit-only) were performed. Eleven studies with a total of 7,015 patients were included in our analysis. There was no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.05), cardiovascular death (HR 0.69, 95%CI 0.35-1.33), myocardial infarction (HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.37-1.16), and revascularization (HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.70-1.58) between same-sitting CR and staged CR. When staged CR was further divided into staged CR during the hospitalization and after discharge, there was no significant difference in these outcomes between staged CR (in-hospital) and staged CR (out-hospital). In conclusion, in patients with multivessel disease presenting with STEMI, complete revascularization at any timing, including same-sitting, staged in-hospital, and staged out-hospital, may have similar benefits.

Coronary stenting of nonaorto ostial coronary lesions is challenging because of plaque shift into the main vessel, triggering the use of additional stents. Furthermore, inappropriate coverage of the ostium of the side branch increases the risk of restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR). To improve the treatment of nonaorto ostial coronary lesions with a novel interventional technique, we tested the hypothesis that inflating a balloon in the main vessel before stenting the side branch (stent pull-back technique) will limit plaque shifting and reduce the use of additional stents. In addition, proper coverage of the side branch ostium may also reduce 8-month TVR. A case-control design with 100 consecutive patients who underwent drug-eluting stent placement was performed; 55 patients were treated with the stent pull-back technique and 45 patients with a conventional stent technique. Procedural success was 100% for the 2 techniques. The use of additional stents was reduced in the stent pull-back group compared with the conventional stent group (2% vs 18%, p = 0.007). A tendency toward lower ostial miss was also observed in the stent pull-back group (4% vs 13%, p = 0.11). The incidence of in-hospital and 30-day cardiac events was similar between the 2 groups. TVR was lower in the stent pull-back group compared with the conventional group (5% vs 20%; p = 0.03). In conclusion, the stent pull-back technique improves the percutaneous treatment of nonaorto ostial coronary lesions. The technique is associated with a lower use of additional stents and improved clinical outcome, reducing TVR at 8 months of follow-up.

The TEAM pilot study underscores the importance of adequate platelet inhibition (>90% PI) in high-risk PCI, and demonstrates that attaining >90% PI is possible in most patients by adding a half-bolus of any GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor, with no increase in major/minor bleeding similar periprocedural myocardial necrosis, and 30-day MACE with all 3 GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors.

showed that selective dopa-mine-1 receptor agonist fenoldopam protects againstcontrast-mediated reduction in renal bloodfl ow com-pared with Schering 23390, a dopamine-1 receptorantagonist. Although fenoldopam has been shown tobe a “reno-protective” agent in the setting of renalischemic injury during percutaneous coronary inter-vention (PCI)