Multivessel Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in STEMI and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

ObjectivesThe goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of contemporary randomized trials addressing the efficacy and safety of multivessel versus culprit vessel–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease.BackgroundMultivessel coronary artery disease is present in about one-half of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel and culprit vessel–only PCI produced conflicting results regarding the benefits of a multivessel PCI strategy.MethodsA comprehensive search for published randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel PCI with culprit vessel–only PCI was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO Services, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and scientific conference sessions from inception to September 15, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Primary efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality and reinfarction.ResultsTen randomized controlled trials were included, representing 7,030 patients: 3,426 underwent multivessel PCI and 3,604 received culprit vessel–only PCI. Compared with culprit vessel–only PCI, multivessel PCI was associated with no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.05) and lower risk for reinfarction (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.95), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.00), and repeat revascularization (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.44). Major bleeding (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.67), stroke (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.65 to 2.01), and contrast-induced nephropathy (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.95) were not significantly different between the 2 groups.ConclusionsMultivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk for reinfarction, without any difference in all-cause mortality, compared with culprit vessel–only PCI in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.     

A randomized trial of rescue angioplasty versus a conservative approach for failed fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the Middlesbrough Early Revascularization to Limit INfarction (MERLIN) trial

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare emergency coronary angiography with or without rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with conservative treatment in patients with failed fibrinolysis complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND: Most patients with STEMI receive fibrinolytic therapy and aspirin. The management of failed fibrinolysis is unclear. METHODS: A total of 307 patients with STEMI and failed fibrinolysis were randomized to emergency coronary angiography with or without rescue PCI or conservative treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-day all-cause mortality was similar in the rescue and conservative groups (9.8% vs. 11%, p = 0.7, risk difference [RD] 1.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.8 to 8.3). The composite secondary end point of death/re-infarction/stroke/subsequent revascularization/heart failure occurred less frequently in the rescue group (37.3% vs. 50%, p = 0.02, RD 12.7%, 95% CI 1.6 to 23.5), driven by less subsequent revascularization (6.5% vs. 20.1%, p < 0.01, RD 13.6%, 95% CI 6.2 to 21.4). Re-infarction and clinical heart failure were less common in the rescue group (7.2% vs. 10.4%, p = 0.3, RD 3.2%, 95% CI -3.3 to 9.9; and 24.2% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.3, RD 5.7%, 95% CI -4.3 to 15.6, respectively). Strokes and transfusions were more common in the rescue group (4.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.03, RD 3.9%, 95% CI 0.5 to 8.6; and 11.1% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001, RD 9.8%, 95% CI 4.9 to 19.9, respectively). Left ventricular function at 30 days was the same in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rescue angioplasty did not improve survival by 30 days, but improved event-free survival, almost completely due to a reduction in subsequent revascularization. Rescue angioplasty was associated with more strokes and more transfusions and did not result in preservation of left ventricular systolic function at 30 days.     

Body mass index and effectiveness of reperfusion strategies: implications for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: Fibrinolytic therapy has maximum dose limit in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Consequently, obese patients receive lower dose of fibrinolytic per kg body weight compared to lower weight patients. Whether the relatively lower dose results in lower effectiveness of fibrinolytic agents versus primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with higher body mass index (BMI) is not known. METHODS: We analyzed 7,630 STEMI patients receiving primary PCI (46%) or fibrinolysis (54%) < 24 hours of symptom onset from the MITRA PLUS registry. The relative effectiveness of the 2 reperfusion strategies on in-hospital death (adjusted with propensity scores) and bleeding were studied in 3 BMI groups: I-BMI 20-24.9 kg/m(2) (n = 2,277), II-BMI 25-29.9 kg/m(2) (n = 3,763), and III-BMI > or = 30 kg/m(2) (n = 1,590). RESULTS: BMI was inversely related to death, shock, stroke, and bleeding in patients treated with either reperfusion strategy. However, compared with primary PCI, fibrinolysis was associated with higher adjusted death with similar relative adjusted difference in all 3 groups (group I OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.19-2.44; group II OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.39-2.56; group III OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.08-3.22). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with primary PCI, fibrinolysis was associated with relatively similar higher risk of death in all 3 BMI groups. Whether the differences in death between fibrinolysis and primary PCI in the high-BMI categories can be reduced by higher fibrinolytic doses without increasing bleeding risks needs evaluation in future studies.     

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel after fibrinolytic therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel are recommended as adjuncts to fibrinolytic-treated patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the role of switching to ticagrelor within 24 h of fibrinolytics compared with clopidogrel continuation in this setting is uncertain. Hence, we conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases for all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel after fibrinolytic therapy in patients with STEMI. A random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 5 RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of ticagrelor post-fibrinolysis were identified. We included 3 RCTs with 3999 total patients for our meta-analysis. The results showed similar short-term clinical outcomes between ticagrelor and clopidogrel with regard to rates of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type?≥?2 bleeding (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.56–1.60; P?=?0.83), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.49–1.52; P?=?0.62), mortality (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.53–1.59; P?=?0.77), myocardial infarction (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.43–1.36; P?=?0.36), and stroke (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.50–1.73; P?=?0.82). Our results demonstrate that in STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy, switching to ticagrelor was associated with similar bleeding and ischemic outcomes compared with clopidogrel continuation.     

Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in Patients Presenting With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

BackgroundIn patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit vessel is the preferred treatment option. For patients with multivessel disease, the benefit of revascularization of the non-culprit artery is not well known. This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of complete versus culprit vessel only revascularization.MethodsRandomized control trials (RCT) that compared head-to-head complete versus culprit-vessel only revascularization in STEMI patients and reported main outcomes of interest such as mortality, myocardial infarction, and revascularization, were included in this meta-analysis.ResultsWe found ten RCTs satisfying our inclusion criteria. Data was extracted and used to estimate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous variables. Our study included 7030 patients (3426 complete revascularization, and 3604 culprit-only revascularization). Complete revascularization (CR) (both immediate and staged) significantly reduced the risk of MACE compared with culprit only (CO) revascularization (10.7% vs 20.1%, RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.64; P < 0.0001), reinfarction (5.0% vs 6.9%, RR 0.69; 95 CI 0.51 to 0.93; P < 0.01), and revascularization (4.2% vs 12.7%, RR 0.37; 95 CI 0.26 to 0.54; P < 0.0001). Our analysis did not find any significant difference in all-cause mortality between CR and CO (4.6% vs 5.0%, RR 0.89; 95 CI 0.72 to 0.1.10; P = 0.27).ConclusionIn conclusion, complete revascularization was associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, revascularization and reinfarction.     

Assessment of Repeat Revascularization in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials as a Surrogate for Mortality: A Meta-Regression Analysis

The association of repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with mortality is uncertain. To assess the association of repeat revascularization after PCI with mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We identified randomized controlled trials comparing PCI with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or optimal medical therapy (OMT) using electronic databases through January 1, 2022. We performed a random-effects meta-regression between repeat revascularization rates after PCI (absolute risk difference [%] between PCI and CABG or OMT) with the relative risks (RR) of mortality. We assessed surrogacy of repeat revascularization for mortality using the coefficient of determination (R2), with threshold of 0.80. In 33 trials (21,735 patients), at median follow-up of 4 (2-7) years, repeat revascularization was higher after PCI than CABG [RR: 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-3.03)], but lower vs OMT [RR: 0.64 (0.46-0.88)]. Overall, meta-regression showed that repeat revascularization rates after PCI had no significant association with all-cause mortality [RR: 1.01 (0.99-1.02); R2=0.10) or cardiovascular mortality [RR: 1.01 (CI: 0.99-1.03); R2=0.09]. In PCI vs CABG (R2=0.0) or PCI vs OMT trials (R2=0.28), repeat revascularization did not meet the threshold for surrogacy for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality (R2=0.0). We observed concordant results for subgroup analyses (enrollment time, follow-up, sample size, risk of bias, stent types, and coronary artery disease), and multivariable analysis adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, risk of bias, MI, and follow-up duration. In summary, this meta-regression did not establish repeat revascularization after PCI as a surrogate for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.     

The efficacy and safety of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention

The optimal antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains to be elucidated. Monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor may be inferior to dual antiplatelet therapy in patients after PCI. PubMed, EMBASE (by Ovidsp), Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to 2 October 2019. The composite of cardiovascular outcomes, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, stent thrombosis, and major bleeding were evaluated. Pooled outcomes were presented as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of four trials randomizing 29 089 participants were included. Compared with the dual antiplatelet therapy group (n = 14 559), the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy group (n = 14 530) significantly decreased the incidence of bleeding events (2.0% vs 3.1%; RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.43-0.84; P = .005). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (1.3% vs 1.5%; RR: 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.06; P = .16), myocardial infarction (2.1% vs 1.9%; RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.90-1.25; P = .46), stroke (0.6% vs 0.5%; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.67-2.07; P = .57), or stent thrombosis (0.5% vs 0.4%; RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.81-1.61; P = .44) between the two groups. P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy did not show any significant difference in the adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, but markedly decreased the risk of bleeding among patients after PCI vs dual antiplatelet therapy. However, it still needs to be further confirmed due to limited data.     

Platelet reactivity-adjusted antiplatelet therapy in patients with percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Numerous number of evidences show that high on-treatment platelet reactivity is a well-known risk factor for adverse events in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Controversial situations still exist regarding the effectiveness of tailoring antiplatelet therapy according to platelet function monitoring. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized trials comparing platelet reactivity-adjusted antiplatelet therapy with conventional antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI. The primary end point was all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including cardiovascular (CV) death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST), revascularization, and stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). The safety end point was defined as major bleeding events. We derived pooled risk ratios (RRs) with fixed-effect models. Six studies enrolling 6347 patients were included. Compared with conventional treatment, tailoring antiplatelet failed to reduce all-cause mortality (RR: 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63–1.24, P = 0.48), MACE (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92–1.14, P = 0.69), MI (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.95–1.21, P = 0.24), CV death (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.40–1.19, P = 0.09), ST (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.50–1.38, P = 0.23), stroke or TIA (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.55–2.12, P = 0.83), revascularization (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.69–1.33, P = 0.79), and major bleeding events (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.53–1.17, P = 0.24).

Compared with traditional antiplatelet treatment, tailoring antiplatelet therapy according to platelet reactivity testing failed to reduce all-cause mortality, MACE, and major bleeding events in patients undergoing PCI.     

Percutaneous coronary intervention and 1 year survival in patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

AIMS: To assess the predictors of 1 year mortality in patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and to determine whether a strategy of early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients (n = 474) admitted to our unit (1998-2001) with STEMI were treated with fibrinolytic therapy. For each patient, age, gender, admission via mobile coronary care unit (MCCU), infarct location, initial systolic blood pressure and Killip class, prior history of ischaemic heart disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking status, family history, hyperlipidaemia, and in-hospital PCI (n = 154) were recorded. Mortality at 1 year was obtained from medical records (n = 473). Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of 1 year mortality. Mortality in the non-PCI group was 21 vs. 7% in the PCI group. Independent predictors of 1 year mortality were age (risk ratio 1.12, 95% CI 1.08-1.15, P < 0.0001), initial SBP < or = 80 mmHg (risk ratio 4.34, 95% CI 1.68-11.2, P = 0.002), initial Killip class > or = 3 (risk ratio 2.97, 95% CI 1.42-6.2, P = 0.004), and lack of in-hospital PCI (risk ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.81, P = 0.012). Although the PCI group were younger (P = 0.007), more likely to be admitted via the MCCU (P = 0.008), with a shorter pain to needle time (P = 0.04), multivariable analysis adjusted for these differences. CONCLUSION: In-hospital PCI in patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy for STEMI is associated with a substantial reduction in 1 year mortality.     

Safety and Efficacy of Ultra Short-duration Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is required after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to reduce stent thrombosis, but DAPT increases bleeding risks. The optimal duration of DAPT that provides the maximum protective ischemic effect along with the minimum bleeding risk is unclear. This is the first meta-analysis comparing outcomes for 1-month versus longer DAPT strategies following PCI.We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (from inception to October 2021) for randomized controlled trials that compared 1-month duration vs > 1-month duration of DAPT following PCI. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The co-primary outcomes for study selection were all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and stent thrombosis. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular mortality, ischemic stroke and target vessel revascularization. A total of five randomized controlled trials were included [n = 29,355; 1-month DAPT(n = 14,662) vs > 1-month DAPT (n = 14,693)]. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of all-cause mortality (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78-1.03; P = 0.12) and stent thrombosis (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.80-1.43; P = 0.65). Similarly, there were no significant differences in MI, cardiovascular mortality, ischemic stroke, and target vessel revascularization. The rate of major bleeding was significantly lower in the group treated with DAPT for 1-month (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.99, P = 0.04).There is no difference in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, stent thrombosis, ischemic stroke, and target vessel revascularization with 1-month of DAPT following PCI with contemporary drug eluting stents compared to longer DAPT duration.     

Routine Invasive Strategy in Elderly Patients with Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Invasive treatment with coronary angiography is preferred approach for patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) compared to medical therapy alone. The results from the randomized clinical trials (RCT) that compared the invasive treatment strategy vs. conservative approach in the elderly (≥75 years) with NSTE-ACS has been inconsistent. To compare invasive and conservative strategies in the elderly (>75 years) with NSTE-ACS. We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL Register and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through July 10, 2021) for RCTs comparing invasive and conservative strategies in the elderly with NSTE-ACS. We used random-effects model to calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval(CI). A total of 6 RCT including 2,323 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The median follow-up duration was 13.5 months. When invasive approach was compared to conservative strategy, it showed no difference in all-cause mortality in patients aged ≥75 years with NSTE-ACS (RR of 0.85; 95% CI 0.70–1.04; P = 0.12; I2 = 0%). There was significant reduction in MI (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.49 0.71; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and unplanned revascularization (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.53, P <0.001, I2 = 0%). Invasive strategy was associated with higher risk of major bleeding when compared to conservative treatment (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.21-3.74, P = 0.009, I2 = 0%). Comparison of both strategies showed no significant difference in stroke (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.38-1.46, P = 0.40; I2 = 0%). This updated meta-analysis suggests that in elderly patients (>75 years) with NSTE-ACS, a routine invasive strategy is associated with a reduction in MI and revascularization, while increasing the risk of major bleeding, but without difference in all-cause mortality and stroke.     

Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients receiving enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin after fibrinolytic therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the ExTRACT-TIMI 25 trial.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate whether enoxaparin (ENOX) is superior to unfractionated heparin (UFH) as adjunctive therapy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who receive fibrinolytic therapy and subsequently undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by analyzing data from the ExTRACT-TIMI 25 (Enoxaparin and Thrombolysis Reperfusion for Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 25) trial. BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the use of ENOX compared with UFH as adjunctive therapy in STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy and subsequent PCI. METHODS: A total of 20,479 STEMI patients who received fibrinolytic therapy were randomized to a strategy of ENOX throughout index hospitalization or UFH for at least 48 h, with blinded study drug to continue if PCI was performed. The primary end point of death or recurrent MI through 30 days was compared for ENOX versus UFH among the patients who underwent subsequent PCI (n = 4,676). RESULTS: After initial fibrinolysis, fewer patients underwent PCI through 30 days in the ENOX versus the UFH group (22.8% vs. 24.2%; p = 0.027). Among patients who underwent PCI by 30 days, the primary end point occurred in 10.7% of ENOX and 13.8% of UFH patients (0.77 relative risk; p < 0.001). There were no differences in major bleeding for ENOX versus UFH (1.4% vs. 1.6%; p = NS). Results were similar when PCI was carried out in patients receiving blinded study drug during PCI (n = 2,178). CONCLUSION: Among patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy for STEMI who underwent subsequent PCI, ENOX administration was associated with a reduced risk of death or recurrent MI without difference in the risk of major bleeding. The strategy of ENOX support for fibrinolytic therapy followed by PCI is superior to UFH and provides a seamless transition from the medical management to the interventional management phase of STEMI without the need for introducing a second anticoagulant in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.     

Short Duration of DAPT Versus De-Escalation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and de-escalation in a network meta-analysis using standard DAPT as common comparator.BackgroundIn patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), shortening DAPT and de-escalating to a lower potency regimen mitigate bleeding risk. These strategies have never been randomly compared.MethodsRandomized trials of DAPT modulation strategies in patients with ACS undergoing PCI were identified. All-cause death was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE), major adverse cardiovascular events, and their components. Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. Treatments were ranked on the basis of posterior probability. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity.ResultsTwenty-nine studies encompassing 50,602 patients were included. The transitivity assumption was fulfilled. In the frequentist indirect comparison, the risk ratio (RR) for all-cause death was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.68-1.43). De-escalation reduced the risk for NACE (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70-0.94) and increased major bleeding (RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.07-2.21). These results were consistent in the Bayesian meta-analysis. De-escalation displayed a >95% probability to rank first for NACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, while short DAPT ranked first for major bleeding. These findings were consistent in node-split and multiple sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsIn patients with ACS undergoing PCI, there was no difference in all-cause death between short DAPT and de-escalation. De-escalation reduced the risk for NACE, while short DAPT decreased major bleeding. These data characterize 2 contemporary strategies to personalize DAPT on the basis of treatment objectives and risk profile.     

Effectiveness of primary percutaneous coronary intervention compared with that of thrombolytic therapy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction

Background

Few data exist from a community-based perspective on the relative effectiveness of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as compared with thrombolytic therapy (TT) in elderly patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), particularly in the current era of coronary stents and newer antithrombotic agents.

Methods

We evaluated data from patients, aged ≥70 years, with STEMI who were enrolled in the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events study between April 1999, and September 2002.

Results

Of the 2975 elderly patients eligible for reperfusion therapy, 365 (12.7%) underwent primary PCI and 769 (26.7%) received TT. The median delay from hospital arrival to therapy was 105 minutes for primary PCI and 40 minutes for TT. Inhospital complications for primary PCI versus TT included mortality (13.5% vs 14.8%), reinfarction (1.1% vs 5.7%), composite of death or reinfarction (14.3% vs 18.7%), cardiogenic shock (11.3% vs 11.6%), major bleeding (8.6% vs 5.9%), and stroke (1.1% vs 2.8%). After adjustment for baseline differences and propensity score, patients receiving primary PCI showed a lower rate of reinfarction (odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.44) and mortality (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96) and the composite of reinfarction or death (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.79), with no difference in other outcome measures.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that, compared with TT, primary PCI is associated with a decrease in reinfarction and mortality, with no change in other outcome measures, in elderly patients with STEMI. These findings from an observational registry require further confirmation in future randomized clinical trial assessing the optimal reperfusion strategy in the elderly cohort with STEMI.     

Percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis: a multiple meta-analyses approach according to the type of strategy.

OBJECTIVES: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials that enrolled ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with fibrinolysis to assess the potential benefits of: 1) rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus no PCI; 2) systematic and early (< or =24 h) PCI versus delayed or ischemia-guided PCI; 3) fibrinolysis-facilitated PCI versus primary PCI alone. BACKGROUND: The impact of PCI strategies after fibrinolysis on mortality or reinfarction remains to be established. METHODS: The meta-analysis was performed using the odds ratio (OR) as the parameter of efficacy with a random effect model. Fifteen randomized trials (5,253 patients) were selected. The primary end point was mortality or the combined end point of death or reinfarction. RESULTS: Rescue PCI for failed fibrinolysis reduced mortality (6.9% vs. 10.7%) (OR, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.99; p = 0.055) and the rate of death or reinfarction (10.8% vs. 16.8%) (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.89; p = 0.012) compared with a conservative approach. Systematic and early PCI performed during the "stent era" led to a nonsignificant reduction in mortality compared with delayed or ischemia-guided PCI (3.8% vs. 6.7%) (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.05; p = 0.07) and to a 2-fold reduction in the rate of death or reinfarction (7.5% vs. 13.2%) (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.83; p = 0.0067). This benefit contrasted with a nonsignificant increase in the rate of both mortality (5.5% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.33) or death or reinfarction (9.6% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.06) observed in the "balloon era." Fibrinolysis-facilitated PCI was associated with more reinfarction as compared with primary PCI alone (5.0% vs. 3.0%) (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.51; p = 0.013) without significant impact on mortality (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.83; p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support rescue PCI and systematic and early PCI after fibrinolysis. However, the current data do not support fibrinolysis-facilitated PCI in lieu of primary PCI alone.     

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access in Patients Undergoing Rescue Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Fibrinolytic Therapy

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess usage patterns of transradial access in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and associations between vascular access site choice and outcomes.BackgroundTransradial access reduces bleeding and mortality in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. Little is known about access site choice and outcomes in patients undergoing rescue PCI after receiving full-dose fibrinolytic therapy for STEMI.MethodsPatients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry’s CathPCI Registry undergoing rescue PCI for STEMI between 2009 and 2013 were studied. Patients were divided on the basis of access site. Patterns of access use and baseline demographics were noted. Unadjusted and propensity-matched analyses were performed comparing in-hospital bleeding, vascular complications, and mortality outcomes among transradial and transfemoral access patients. The falsification endpoint of gastrointestinal bleeding was specified to assess for persistent unmeasured confounding.ResultsTransradial access was used in 14.2% of cases. In propensity-matched analyses, transradial rescue PCI was associated with significantly less bleeding than transfemoral access (odds ratio [OR]: 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 0.87; p = 0.003), but not mortality (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.25; p = 0.35). Gastrointestinal bleeding was less frequent in the radial group (OR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.98; p = 0.05).ConclusionsIn a large, “real-world” registry, transradial access was used in a minority of cases and was associated with significantly less bleeding than transfemoral access in patients undergoing rescue PCI. However, given persistent differences in a falsification endpoint, the influence of treatment-selection bias on these results cannot be ruled out. Further studies are needed to determine predictors of bleeding and mortality in this understudied high-risk group.     

Acute myocardial infarction interventional procedures: primary percutaneous coronary intervention versus facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention, rescue angioplasty, rescue excimer laser

ST-elevation myocardial infarction is due to the occlusion of a coronary artery, mainly due to a rupture of an atherosclerotic plaque with superimposed thrombosis. The main therapeutic goal is to restore the blood flow within the culprit artery as quickly as possible. In this review we discussed the several approaches which have been employed to reach this target. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is considered the best treatment option, as it is associated to lower in-hospital mortality, reduced risk of reinfarction and stroke, lower rate of intracranial bleeding and ventricular rupture from myocardial hemorrhage compared with fibrinolytic therapy. Also, it is superior to facilitated PCI, i.e. immediate planned PCI after i.v. thrombolytic therapy administration, because of lower mortality, reinfarction rate, strokes and bleedings. Rescue PCI after failed thrombolysis was associated with a reduction of early severe heart failure and improved survival at 1 year, in patients with moderate to large infarctions, compared to conservative medical therapy, in a pooled analysis of 9 randomized trials, carried out in the balloon era. Also in the stent era, a meta-analysis of 5 randomized trials found a significant 36% reduction in the risk of 30-day mortality, a trend to lower risk of heart failure, although a marginally increased risk of thromboembolic stroke, in the rescue PCI arm. However, rescue PCI is not associated with a better long-term clinical outcome. Laser thrombectomy before PCI could be a useful additional strategy which might be compared to standard stenting in future randomized studies.     

Effect of Smoking on Outcomes of Primary PCI in Patients With STEMI

BackgroundSmoking is a well-established risk factor for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); however, once STEMI occurs, smoking has been associated with favorable short-term outcomes, an observation termed the “smoker’s paradox.” It has been postulated that smoking might exert protective effects that could reduce infarct size, a strong independent predictor of worse outcomes after STEMI.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine the relationship among smoking, infarct size, microvascular obstruction (MVO), and adverse outcomes after STEMI.MethodsIndividual patient-data were pooled from 10 randomized trials of patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Infarct size was assessed at median 4 days by either cardiac magnetic resonance imaging or technetium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography. Multivariable analysis was used to assess the relationship between smoking, infarct size, and the 1-year rates of death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization and reinfarction.ResultsAmong 2,564 patients with STEMI, 1,093 (42.6%) were recent smokers. Smokers were 10 years younger and had fewer comorbidities. Infarct size was similar in smokers and nonsmokers (adjusted difference: 0.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −3.3% to 3.3%; p = 0.99). Nor was the extent of MVO different between smokers and nonsmokers. Smokers had lower crude 1-year rates of all-cause death (1.0% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.001) and death or HF hospitalization (3.3% vs. 5.1%; p = 0.009) with similar rates of reinfarction. After adjustment for age and other risk factors, smokers had a similar 1-year risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR]: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.84) and higher risks of death or HF hospitalization (adjHR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.09 to 2.02) as well as reinfarction (adjHR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.17 to 3.33).ConclusionsIn the present large-scale individual patient-data pooled analysis, recent smoking was unrelated to infarct size or MVO, but was associated with a worse prognosis after primary PCI in STEMI. The smoker’s paradox may be explained by the younger age and fewer cardiovascular risk factors in smokers compared with nonsmokers.     

Complete Revascularization in Patients With STEMI and Multi-Vessel Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundPercutaneous 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.MethodsWe 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).ResultsTwelve 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; I² = 72%], cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.74; 95% CI (0.56–0.99); p = 0.04; I² = 2%], and repeat revascularization [HR 0.43; 95% CI (0.31–0.59); p < 0.00001; I² = 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; I² = 49%], all-cause mortality [HR 0.86; 95% CI (0.65–1.13); p = 0.28; I² = 14%], heart failure [HR 0.82 95% CI (0.51–1.32); p = 0.42; I² = 26%], major bleeding [HR 1.07; 95% CI (0.66–1.75); p = 0.78; I² = 25%], stroke [HR 0.67; 95% CI (0.24–1.89); p = 0.45; I² = 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; I² = 0%].ConclusionComplete 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.     

Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

New oral anticoagulants, including apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban, have been developed as alternatives to warfarin, the standard oral anticoagulation therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants to those of warfarin in patients with AF. The published research was systematically searched for randomized controlled trials of >1 year in duration that compared new oral anticoagulants to warfarin in patients with AF. Random-effects models were used to pool efficacy and safety data across randomized controlled trials. Three studies, including 44,563 patients, were identified. Patients randomized to new oral anticoagulants had a decreased risk for all-cause stroke and systemic embolism (relative risk [RR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 0.92), ischemic and unidentified stroke (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99), hemorrhagic stroke (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.68), all-cause mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95), and vascular mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98). Randomization to a new oral anticoagulant was associated with a lower risk for intracranial bleeding (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.66). Data regarding the risks for major bleeding (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.09) and gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.72) were inconclusive. In conclusion, the new oral anticoagulants are more efficacious than warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with AF. With a decreased risk for intracranial bleeding, they appear to have a favorable safety profile, making them promising alternatives to warfarin.