Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Identification of the infarct-related artery (IRA) in patients with STEMI using coronary angiography (CA) is often based on the ECG and can be challenging in patients with severe multi-vessel disease. The current study aimed to determine how often percutaneous intervention (PCI) is performed in a coronary artery different from the artery supplying the territory of acute infarction on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). METHODS:We evaluated 113 patients from the Reduction of infarct Expansion and Ventricular remodeling with Erythropoetin After Large myocardial infarction (REVEAL) trial, who underwent CMR within 4±2 days of revascularization. Blinded reviewers interpreted CA to determine the IRA and CMR to determine the location of infarction on a 17-segment model. In patients with multiple infarcts on CMR, acuity was determined with T2-weighted imaging and/or evidence of microvascular obstruction. RESULTS:A total of 5 (4%) patients were found to have a mismatch between the IRA identified on CMR and CA. In 4/5 cases, there were multiple infarcts noted on CMR. Thirteen patients (11.5%) had multiple infarcts in separate territories on CMR with 4 patients (3.5%) having multiple acute infarcts and 9 patients (8%) having both acute and chronic infarcts. CONCLUSIONS:In this select population of patients, the identification of the IRA by CA was incorrect in 4% of patients presenting with STEMI. Four patients with a mismatch had an acute infarction in more than one coronary artery territory on CMR. The role of CMR in patients presenting with STEMI with multi-vessel disease on CA deserves further investigation.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) induces thrombin generation and is associated with the risk of acute, subacute, or long-term ischaemic events. Therefore, intravenous anticoagulation is recommended to minimize thrombotic complications. The intensity and duration of anticoagulation needed are dependent on the clinical presentation (elective PCI for stable coronary artery disease, PCI for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes, or primary PCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) and procedural features. As both ischaemic and periprocedural bleeding complications are associated with acute and long-term mortality, the optimal level of anticoagulation and the best agents are a matter of debate. Despite a number of limitations and the lack of large randomized clinical trials, unfractionated heparin (UFH) is still been used in the majority of interventions. Intravenous enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, leads to a more predictable level of anticoagulation and has been compared with UFH in patients with elective PCI and primary PCI with favourable results. The direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin has been studied in numerous trials and consistently shown to reduce bleeding complications when compared with UFH with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. This review will summarize the current status of anticoagulation for PCI and the results of most recent trials and give recommendations for different clinical scenarios.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Periprocedural bleedings, often related to vascular access site, represent an important drawback of percutaneous coronary procedures and are associated with worse outcomes. Radial access (RA) and, potentially, femoral access (FA) with vascular closure device (VCD) are useful strategies in order to mitigate periprocedural bleedings; nevertheless, their relative efficacy is largely undetermined. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of available studies comparing the efficacy of RA and FA with hemostasis by VCD (FA + VCD) on the reduction of access-site complications and/or periprocedural bleedings. METHODS:Published studies reporting outcomes on access-site complications and periprocedural bleedings were included in the analysis. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers; odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by random-effects model and were used as summary statistics. RESULTS:We included in the analysis 13 studies, of which 5 were randomized. Access-site complications were reported by 11 studies, amounting to 157,031 patients (77,713 in the RA group and 79,318 in the FA + VCD group), whereas periprocedural bleedings were reported by 12 studies, amounting to 600,196 patients (137,277 in the RA group and 462,919 in the FA + VCD group). RA was associated with a significant reduction in access-site complications (OR, 0.25; 95% CI ,0.21-0.31; P<.001) and periprocedural bleedings (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.34-0.48; P<.001) as compared with FA + VCD; the results were consistent among randomized and observational studies. CONCLUSIONS:This meta-analysis shows that RA is superior to FA + VCD in the reduction of access-site complications and periprocedural bleedings.

Several recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated better outcomes with multivessel complete revascularization (CR) than with infarct-related artery-only revascularization (IRA-OR) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. It is unclear whether CR should be performed during the index procedure (IP) at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or as a staged procedure (SP). Therefore, we performed a pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model and network meta-analysis using mixed-treatment comparison models to compare the efficacies of 3 revascularization strategies (IRA-OR, CR-IP, and CR-SP). Scientific databases and websites were searched to find RCTs. Data from 9 RCTs involving 2,176 patients were included. In mixed-comparison models, CR-IP decreased the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; odds ratio [OR] 0.36, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.54), recurrent myocardial infarction (MI; OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.91), revascularization (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.38), and cardiovascular (CV) mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.87). However, only the rates of MACEs, MI, and CV mortality were lower with CR-SP than with IRA-OR. Similarly, in direct-comparison meta-analysis, the risk of MI was 66% lower with CR-IP than with IRA-OR, but this advantage was not seen with CR-SP. There were no differences in all-cause mortality between the 3 revascularization strategies. In conclusion, this meta-analysis shows that in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease, CR either during primary PCI or as an SP results in lower occurrences of MACE, revascularization, and CV mortality than IRA-OR. CR performed during primary PCI also results in lower rates of recurrent MI and seems the most efficacious revascularization strategy of the 3.