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 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]

Objective: We aimed to relate the amount of jeopardized myocardium to mortality in shocked patients presenting to the catheterization laboratory with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock.Background: In contrast with historical data and previous professional guidance, contemporary randomized data suggest that multi-vessel revascularization in such patients does not improve survival; mechanistic insight is incomplete.Methods: Clinical databases identified cases of STEMI and shock triaged for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in Eastern Denmark from June 2011 to December 2014 (n = 128). British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS)-1 jeopardy scores were calculated from angiography. The study endpoint was 30-day mortality.Results: Median lactate values were 6.0 [2.9-10.7] mmol/L. 30-day mortality was 53.9%. 68% of patients had multi-vessel coronary disease. Median pre-PCI BCIS-1 myocardial jeopardy scores were 8 [6-10]. After multiple logistic regression increasing age (p = 0.008; odds ratio [OR] 1.06), lactate values (p = 0.017; OR 1.02), mechanical ventilation (p = 0.011; OR 1.25) and a systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg at end-case (p = 0.005; OR 1.26) were predictive of 30-day mortality. Post-PPCI culprit vessel TIMI 3 flow was associated with reduced mortality (p < 0.001; OR 0.66). There was no association between pre-PCI jeopardy scores and the primary endpoint.Conclusions: In patients with STEMI and shock, myocardial jeopardy scores do not relate to patient outcomes. Jeopardy scores may be applied to existing datasets in order to understand why multi-vessel revascularization does not lead to the anticipated clinical benefits in cardiogenic shock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• SuPAR was a strong prognostic biomarker of non-cardiac mortality after STEMI. • The suPAR level was independent of sampling time < 12 h after revascularization. • SuPAR may identify patients in risk of non-cardiac mortality prior to discharge. Identification of patients at high risk of non-cardiac mortality following ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) could guide clinicians to identify patients who require attention due to serious non-cardiac conditions after the acute phase of STEMI. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the non-specific and prognostic biomarker of inflammation and comorbidity, soluble urokinase receptor (suPAR), could predict non-cardiac mortality in a cohort of STEMI patients. SuPAR was measured in 1,190 STEMI patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). The primary endpoint was non-cardiac mortality, secondary endpoints were cardiac mortality, all-cause mortality, reinfarction and periprocedural acute kidney injury. Backwards elimination of potential confounders significantly associated with the respective outcome was used to adjust associations. Patients were followed for a median of 3.0 years (interquartile range 2.5– 3.6 years). Multivariate cox regression revealed that a plasma suPAR level above 3.70 ng mL−1 was associated with non-cardiac and cardiac mortality at hazard ratios 3.33 (95% confidence interval 1.67–6.63, p = 0.001, adjusted for age) and 0.99 (0.18–5.30, p = 0.98, adjusted for previous myocardial infarction and left ventricular ejection fraction), respectively. In patients with pPCI treated STEMI, suPAR was an independent prognostic biomarker of non-cardiac but not cardiac mortality and may identify patients with high risk of non-cardiac mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although some studies found improved coronary flow and myocardial salvage when stent implantation was deferred, the DANAMI-3-DEFER (Third DANish Study of Optimal Acute Treatment of Patients With ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction) did not show any improvement in clinical outcome in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and deferred stenting.Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the effect of deferred stent implantation on infarct size, myocardial salvage, and microvascular obstruction (MVO) in patients with STEMI.Methods: In the present DANAMI-3 substudy, a total of 510 patients with STEMI were randomized to PCI with deferred versus immediate stent implantation. The patients underwent a cardiac magnetic resonance examination before discharge after the index procedure and again 3 months later. The primary endpoint was final infarct size.Results: Deferred stenting did not reduce final infarct size (9% left ventricle [LV]; interquartile range [IQR]: 3% to 18% vs. 10% LV; IQR: 3% to 18%; p = 0.67). Similarly, deferred stenting was not associated with myocardial salvage index (66%; IQR: 50% to 89% vs. 67%; IQR: 49% to 88%; p = 0.80) or presence of MVO (43% vs. 42%; p = 0.78). In a post hoc analysis, stent length was the only subgroup of 7 that had an effect on outcome. In patients with a stent length ≥24 mm, deferred stenting reduced the final infarct size (6% LV; IQR: 2% to 18% vs. 13% LV; IQR: 7% to 23%; p = 0.006; and p for interaction = 0.005).Conclusions: In the DANAMI-3-DEFER cardiac magnetic resonance substudy, routine deferred stenting did not reduce infarct size or MVO and did not increase myocardial salvage. These results do not support the use of routine deferred stenting in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI. (DANish Study of Optimal Acute Treatment of Patients With ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction [DANAMI-3]; NCT01435408). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate whether an intensified antiplatelet regimen could improve prognosis in stable or non-ST elevation in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients exhibiting high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) on clopidogrel and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is a wide variability in the platelet reactivity to clopidogrel and HTPR has been associated with a poor prognosis.Methods: In this observational study, 923 consecutive patients without ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and adequately pre-treated with clopidogrel were screened for HTPR with multiple electrode aggregometry after assessment of the coronary anatomy. Patients were grouped based on their response to clopidogrel and the assigned antiplatelet strategy. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or stent thrombosis.Results: HTPR was demonstrated in 237 patients (25.7%). Of these, 114 continued on conventional clopidogrel therapy, while the remaining 123 received intensified antiplatelet therapy with either double-dose clopidogrel (150 mg daily,n = 55) or the newer P2Y12-inhibitors, prasugrel or ticagrelor (n = 68) for at least 30 days after the index procedure. The median follow-up was 571 days (interquartile range, 373–746). Intensifying antiplatelet therapy reduced the rate of the composite endpoint (p < 0.001). After adjustment for potential confounders, HTPR in combination with conventional clopidogrel therapy remained independently associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio (HR), 2.92; 95% CI, 1.90–4.48), whereas intensified treatment reduced the risk to a level equivalent to that of patients exhibiting normal platelet reactivity (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.59–1.99).Conclusion: Tailored antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced the event rate in patients exhibiting HTPR prior to PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background Short-term mortality has been studied thoroughly in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), whereas long-term cause of death in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains unknown. Objectives The goal of this study was to describe the association between time and cause of death in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. Methods A centralized civil registration system, patient files, and public disease and death cause registries with an accurate record linkage were used to trace time and cause of death in 2,804 consecutive patients with STEMI (age 63 ± 13 years, 72% males) treated with primary PCI. Results Patients were followed up for a median of 4.7 years. During a total of 13,447 patient-years, 717 patients died. Main causes of death within the first 30 days were cardiogenic shock and anoxic brain injury after cardiac arrest. Age, culprit vessel size and flow, and the presence of heart failure and diabetes were independent predictors of mortality. After 30 days, the annual cardiac mortality rate was <1.5%. Causes of death beyond 30 days were noncardiac in 65% of cases (mainly malignancies and pulmonary diseases). The 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year all-cause (and cardiac) mortality rates were 7.9% (7.3%), 11.4% (8.4%), and 23.3% (13.8%), respectively. Conclusions Patients who survive the first month after an STEMI treated with primary PCI have an excellent prognosis, with a <1.5% annual risk of successive cardiac death. Noncardiac causes are responsible for the majority of later deaths in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate the incidence, risk factors and long-term prognosis of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI). Method: A large-scale, retrospective cohort study based on procedure-related variables, biochemical and mortality data collected between 2009 and 2014 at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. AKI was defined as an increase in serum creatinine of 25% during the first 72 hours after the index procedure. Results: A total of 4239 patients were treated with primary PCI of whom 4002 had available creatinine measurements allowing for assessment of AKI and inclusion in this study. The mean creatinine value upon presentation for all patients was 84 μmol/l (standard deviation (SD) ±40) and 97 μmol/l (SD ±53) at peak. AKI occurred in a total of 765 (19.1%) patients. Independent risk factors for the occurrence of AKI were age, time from symptom onset to procedure, peak value of troponin-T, female sex and the contrast volume to eGFR ratio. In a multivariable adjusted analysis AKI was independently associated with a higher mortality rate at 5 years follow-up (hazard ratio 1.39 [95%-confidence interval 1.03–1.88]). Conclusion: In STEMI patients treated with primary PCI one in five experiences acute kidney injury, which was associated with a substantial increase in both short- and long-term mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The impact of disease severity on the outcome after complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment--elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease is uncertain. The objective of this post hoc study was to evaluate the impact of number of diseased vessel, lesion location, and severity of the noninfarct-related stenosis on the effect of fractional flow reserve--guided complete revascularization. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI study (Primary PCI in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: Treatment of Culprit Lesion Only or Complete Revascularization), we randomized 627 ST-segment--elevation myocardial infarction patients to fractional flow reserve--guided complete revascularization or infarct-related percutaneous coronary intervention only. In patients with 3-vessel disease, fractional flow reserve--guided complete revascularization reduced the primary end point (all-cause mortality, reinfarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization; hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17--0.64; P=0.001), with no significant effect in patients with 2-vessel disease (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.47--1.26; P=0.29; P for interaction =0.046). A similar effect was observed in patients with diameter stenosis ≥90% of noninfarct-related arteries (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-- 0.62; P=0.001), but not in patients with less severe lesions (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.44--1.19; P=0.21; P for interaction =0.06). The effect was most pronounced in patients with 3-vessel disease and noninfarct-related stenoses ≥90%, and in this subgroup, there was a nonsignificant reduction in the end point of mortality and reinfarction (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.08--1.32; P=0.09). Proximal versus distal location did not influence the benefit from complete revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit from fractional flow reserve--guided complete revascularization in ST-segment--elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease was dependent on the presence of 3-vessel disease and noninfarct diameter stenosis ≥90% and was particularly pronounced in patients with both of these angiographic characteristics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01960933. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]