Direct Stenting Versus Pre‐Dilation in ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Objectives

This study aimed at comparing direct stenting (DS) versus stenting with pre‐dilation (SP) in patients with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), using a systematic review and meta‐analysis of published evidence.

Background

There is conflicting evidence whether stenting strategy impacts clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI.

Methods

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL, from inception to December 2014. The primary endpoint was mortality. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), ST‐segment resolution, and angiographic outcomes.

Results

A total of 9,331 patients enrolled in 12 studies (3 randomized controlled trials, RCTs; 9 non‐randomized studies, NRSs) were included. DS was associated with lower mortality (OR 0.55; 95%CI: 0.33–0.94; P = 0.03) in NRSs, and overall (OR 0.56; 95%CI: 0.37–0.86; P = 0.008). Mortality was non‐significantly reduced in RCTs (OR 0.56; 95%CI: 0.26–1.23; P = 0.15). DS was also associated with lower MACE rate (OR 0.71; 95%CI 0.60–0.84; P < 0.0001) in NRSs, but not in RCTs (OR 0.99; 95%CI: 0.61–1.60; P = 0.96). ST‐segment resolution, no reflow, final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow and final TIMI myocardial perfusion or blush grade were significantly better with DS in NRSs, and non‐significantly better in RCTs.

Conclusions

The available evidence suggests that DS in STEMI might be associated with better clinical and procedural outcomes, as compared with SP. However, the fact that RCTs account for the minority of available data and that most of the available studies poorly reflect current clinical practice, as well as the existence of publication bias, preclude drawing definitive conclusions.

     

No Cardioprotective Benefit of Ischemic Postconditioning in Patients With ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Background

Postconditioning is a potential cardioprotective strategy that has demonstrated conflicting and variable reductions in infarct size in human trials.

Objectives

To determine whether postconditioning could increase the extent of myocardial salvage in patients with acute ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

Methods

One hundred two patients (aged 57 ± 11 years; 88% male) were randomly assigned to a postconditioning or standard protocol. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging was performed 3 days after PPCI to measure the volumetric extent of myocardial necrosis and the area at risk.

Results

With similar time‐to‐reperfusion (170 ± 84 minutes in the postconditioning group vs. 150 ± 70 minutes in the standard group, P = 0.22), the myocardial salvage index was not significantly different between the postconditioned group and the control group, averaging 42 ± 22% vs. 33 ± 21%, respectively (P = 0.08). Furthermore, postconditioning was not associated with a smaller infarct size compared to controls (13 ± 7 g/m² vs. 15 ± 8 g/m², respectively, P = 0.18).

Conclusions

Postconditioning does not significantly increase myocardial salvage or reduce infarct size in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. However, the possibility of a more modest impact of postconditioning cannot be excluded with our sample size. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:482‐490)

     

Outcome of Early Revascularization Surgery in Patients with ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Objectives

To compare morbidity and mortality of patients with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (MI) undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery within 24 hours with those who had surgery delayed >24 hours.

Background

Patients with ST‐elevation MI are currently managed by emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). If PCI is unsuccessful, or if there is severe coronary artery disease not amenable to PCI, CABG is considered. If the patient is clinically stable, surgeons wait several days before performing surgery, as very early surgery carries a prohibitive risk.

Methods

One hundred and eighty‐four patients with acute ST elevation MI (STEMI) who had undergone CABG were divided into two groups based on their surgery timing (<24 hours vs. >24 hours). Mortality and complication rates were studied between the two groups by Fischer test. Time‐to‐event analyses were performed for five primary variables: all‐cause mortality, cardiac events, congestive heart failure, stroke, and renal failure.

Results

At one month post‐CABC, all‐cause mortality was noted in 10.6% of patients who had CABG within 24 hours of STEMI diagnosis, compared with 8.9% in patients who had CABG after 24 hours (P = 0.3). Cardiac events including re‐exploration, atrial fibrillation, graft occlusion, and arrhythmias requiring shock occurred in 17.1% versus 13.9% between the two groups, respectively (P = 0.68). One year post‐coronary artery bypass surgery, there was no difference in individual or combined events between the two groups.

Conclusions

In patients with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction who required emergency coronary artery bypass surgery, there was no difference in procedure complications or mortality between early (within 24 hours) or later (more than 24 hours). That was noted at one month and one year after the index myocardial infarction. (J Interven Cardiol 2015;28:14–23)

     

A Randomized Trial of Complete Versus Culprit‐Only Revascularization During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Diabetic Patients With Acute ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multi Vessel Disease

Background

Recent randomized trials and meta‐analyses demonstrated that a complete revascularization of significant non culprit lesions in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is superior to a culprit only revascularization approach in reducing major adverse cardiac events (MACE), however the proportion of diabetic patients was low in these trials.

Objectives

To investigate whether a complete revascularization approach is associated with better outcomes in diabetic patients with STEMI and multi‐vessel disease.

Methods

One hundred diabetic patients with acute STEMI with at least one non‐culprit lesion were randomized to either complete revascularization (n = 50) or culprit‐only treatment (n = 50). Complete revascularization was performed either at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or within 72 hours during hospitalization. The primary endpoint was the composite of all‐cause mortality, recurrent MI, and ischemia‐driven revascularization at 6 months.

Results

A complete revascularization approach was significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome (6% vs. 24%, P = 0.01), primarily due to reduction in ischemia driven revascularization in the complete revascularization group (2% vs. 12%; P = 0.047). There was no significant reduction in death or MI (2% vs. 8%; P = 0.17) and (2% vs. 4%; P = 0.56) respectively, or in the safety endpoints of major or minor bleeding, contrast‐induced nephropathy, or stroke between the groups.

Conclusions

In diabetic patients with multi‐vessel coronary artery disease undergoing PPCI, complete revascularization is associated with significantly reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular events, as compared with culprit vessel only PCI. (J Interven Cardiol 2016;29:241–247)

     

Complete Revascularization Versus Culprit Lesion Only in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A DANAMI-3–PRIMULTI Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Substudy

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided revascularization compared with culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) on infarct size, left ventricular (LV), function, LV remodeling, and the presence of nonculprit infarctions.

Culprit Vessel Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction with Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundPrevious studies comparing outcomes between culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (CV-PCI) versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) in patients with cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction have shown conflicting results. This meta-analysis investigates the optimal approach for management of these patients considering recently published data.MethodsElectronic databases including MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library were searched for all clinical studies published until May 1, 2018, which compared outcomes in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Studies comparing CV-PCI versus MV-PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were screened for inclusion in final analysis. The primary end point was in-hospital/30 day mortality. Secondary endpoints included long term (>6 months) mortality, renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy, stroke, bleeding, and recurrent myocardial infarction. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% of confidence interval (CI) were computed and p values <0.05 were considered significant.ResultsPatient who underwent CV-PCI had significantly lower short-term mortality (in-hospital or 30-day mortality) (OR: 0.73, CI: 0.61–0.87, p = 0.0005), and lower odds of severe renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy (OR: 0.76, CI: 0.59‐0.98, p = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference in long-term mortality, stroke, bleeding, and recurrent myocardial infarction between two groups.ConclusionThis meta-analysis showed lower short-term mortality and decreased odds of renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy with CV-PCI compared to MV-PCI. However, subgroup analysis including studies exclusively assessing STEMI patients revealed no statistically significant difference in outcomes. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings and evaluate long term results.     

Essential Thrombocythemia: A Case of Acute ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in a Young Female

Essential thrombocythemia (ET) is a clonal disorder of the myeloid stem cell that causes abnormal proliferation of the megakaryocytes. The main feature of the disease is arterial and venous thrombosis caused by platelet dysfunction. Coronary artery involvement leading to acute coronary syndromes is a rare complication of the ET. We report a coronary angioplasty and stenting in a 30‐year‐old female patient with acute ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) as the first clinical sign of essential thrombocythemia. Facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention with GPIIb/IIIa and/or thrombolytic therapy may be considered as the first treatment modality for this patient group. Copyright © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

A Meta‐Analysis of Sex‐Related Differences in Outcomes After Primary Percutaneous Intervention for ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Introduction

The increasing use of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) has improved clinical outcome in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, but the impact of sex on early and mid‐term outcomes remains to be defined.

Methods

Medline, Cochrane Library, Biomed Central, and Google Scholar were searched for articles describing differences in baseline, periprocedural, and midterm outcomes after pPCI, by sex. The primary end point was all‐cause mortality at early and mid‐term follow‐up. Secondary endpoints included in‐hospital bleeding and stroke.

Results

Sixteen studies were included. Women were older, had more frequent hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hypercholesterolemia, as well as longer ischemia time and more shock at presentation. Men were more likely to have had a previous myocardial infarction. Female sex emerged as independently associated to early mortality (OR 1.1; 95%CI, 1.02–1.18) but not to mid‐term mortality (OR, 1.01; 95%CI, 0.99–1.03). The pooled analysis showed a significantly higher risk of in hospital stroke (OR, 1.69; 95%CI, 1.11–2.56) and major bleeding (OR, 2.04; 95%CI, 1.51–2.77) in women.

Conclusions

As compared to men, women undergoing pPCI have more bleedings and strokes, and a worse early, but not mid‐term mortality. These findings may allow a better risk stratification of pPCI patients.

     

Early Complete Revascularization in Hemodynamically Stable Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease

BackgroundThe optimal strategy and timing of revascularization in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the comparative efficacy and safety of early complete revascularization vs culprit-only or staged revascularization in this setting.MethodsWe searched the literature for randomized clinical trials that assessed this issue. Early complete revascularization was defined as a complete revascularization achieved during the index procedure or within 72 hours. Efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes were all bleeding events, stroke, and contrast-induced acute kidney injury.ResultsNine randomized clinical trials with a total of 2837 patients were included; 1254 received early complete revascularization and 1583 were treated with other revascularization strategies. After a mean follow-up of 15.3 ± 9.4 months early complete revascularization was associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (relative risk [RR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.62; P < 0.00001; number needed to treat = 8), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40-0.87), and repeat revascularization (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55) without any difference in all-cause mortality and in safety outcomes compared with culprit-only or staged revascularization. Moreover, fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization reduced the incidence of repeat revascularization compared with angiography-guided procedure (χ² = 4.36; P = 0.04).ConclusionsEarly complete revascularization should be considered in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease deemed suitable for percutaneous interventions. Fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization might be superior to angiography-guided procedures in reducing need for further interventions.