Ravinay Bhindi

BACKGROUND: Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. RESULTS: At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, -0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P=0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. (Funded by Philips Volcano; DEFINE-FLAIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02053038 .).

This Consensus Document is the first of two reports summarizing the views of an expert panel organized by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) on the clinical use of intracoronary imaging including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT). The first document appraises the role of intracoronary imaging to guide percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in clinical practice. Current evidence regarding the impact of intracoronary imaging guidance on cardiovascular outcomes is summarized, and patients or lesions most likely to derive clinical benefit from an imaging-guided intervention are identified. The relevance of the use of IVUS or OCT prior to PCI for optimizing stent sizing (stent length and diameter) and planning the procedural strategy is discussed. Regarding post-implantation imaging, the consensus group recommends key parameters that characterize an optimal PCI result and provides cut-offs to guide corrective measures and optimize the stenting result. Moreover, routine performance of intracoronary imaging in patients with stent failure (restenosis or stent thrombosis) is recommended. Finally, strengths and limitations of IVUS and OCT for guiding PCI and assessing stent failures and areas that warrant further research are critically discussed.

BACKGROUND: During primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), manual thrombectomy may reduce distal embolization and thus improve microvascular perfusion. Small trials have suggested that thrombectomy improves surrogate and clinical outcomes, but a larger trial has reported conflicting results. METHODS: We randomly assigned 10,732 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary PCI to a strategy of routine upfront manual thrombectomy versus PCI alone. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV heart failure within 180 days. The key safety outcome was stroke within 30 days. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 347 of 5033 patients (6.9%) in the thrombectomy group versus 351 of 5030 patients (7.0%) in the PCI-alone group (hazard ratio in the thrombectomy group, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.15; P=0.86). The rates of cardiovascular death (3.1% with thrombectomy vs. 3.5% with PCI alone; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.12; P=0.34) and the primary outcome plus stent thrombosis or target-vessel revascularization (9.9% vs. 9.8%; hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.14; P=0.95) were also similar. Stroke within 30 days occurred in 33 patients (0.7%) in the thrombectomy group versus 16 patients (0.3%) in the PCI-alone group (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.13 to 3.75; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI who were undergoing primary PCI, routine manual thrombectomy, as compared with PCI alone, did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or NYHA class IV heart failure within 180 days but was associated with an increased rate of stroke within 30 days. (Funded by Medtronic and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; TOTAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01149044.).

Outcomes of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have improved because of advancements in equipment and techniques. With global collaboration and knowledge sharing, we have identified 7 common principles that are widely accepted as best practices for CTO-PCI. 1. Ischemic symptom improvement is the primary indication for CTO-PCI. 2. Dual coronary angiography and in-depth and structured review of the angiogram (and, if available, coronary computed tomography angiography) are key for planning and safely performing CTO-PCI. 3. Use of a microcatheter is essential for optimal guidewire manipulation and exchanges. 4. Antegrade wiring, antegrade dissection and reentry, and the retrograde approach are all complementary and necessary crossing strategies. Antegrade wiring is the most common initial technique, whereas retrograde and antegrade dissection and reentry are often required for more complex CTOs. 5. If the initially selected crossing strategy fails, efficient change to an alternative crossing technique increases the likelihood of eventual PCI success, shortens procedure time, and lowers radiation and contrast use. 6. Specific CTO-PCI expertise and volume and the availability of specialized equipment will increase the likelihood of crossing success and facilitate prevention and management of complications, such as perforation. 7. Meticulous attention to lesion preparation and stenting technique, often requiring intracoronary imaging, is required to ensure optimum stent expansion and minimize the risk of short- and long-term adverse events. These principles have been widely adopted by experienced CTO-PCI operators and centers currently achieving high success and acceptable complication rates. Outcomes are less optimal at less experienced centers, highlighting the need for broader adoption of the aforementioned 7 guiding principles along with the development of additional simple and safe CTO crossing and revascularization strategies through ongoing research, education, and training.

Background: Inflammation plays a crucial role in clinical manifestations and complications of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Colchicine, a commonly used treatment for gout, has recently emerged as a novel therapeutic option in cardiovascular medicine owing to its anti-inflammatory properties. We sought to determine the potential usefulness of colchicine treatment in patients with ACS. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 17 hospitals in Australia that provide acute cardiac care service. Eligible participants were adults (18–85 years) who presented with ACS and had evidence of coronary artery disease on coronary angiography managed with either percutaneous coronary intervention or medical therapy. Patients were assigned to receive either colchicine (0.5 mg twice daily for the first month, then 0.5 mg daily for 11 months) or placebo, in addition to standard secondary prevention pharmacotherapy, and were followed up for a minimum of 12 months. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, ACS, ischemia-driven (unplanned) urgent revascularization, and noncardioembolic ischemic stroke in a time to event analysis. Results: A total of 795 patients were recruited between December 2015 and September 2018 (mean age, 59.8±10.3 years; 21% female), with 396 assigned to the colchicine group and 399 to the placebo group. Over the 12-month follow-up, there were 24 events in the colchicine group compared with 38 events in the placebo group ( P =0.09, log-rank). There was a higher rate of total death (8 versus 1; P =0.017, log-rank) and, in particular, noncardiovascular death in the colchicine group (5 versus 0; P =0.024, log-rank). The rates of reported adverse effects were not different (colchicine 23.0% versus placebo 24.3%), and they were predominantly gastrointestinal symptoms (colchicine, 23.0% versus placebo, 20.8%). Conclusions: The addition of colchicine to standard medical therapy did not significantly affect cardiovascular outcomes at 12 months in patients with ACS and was associated with a higher rate of mortality. Registration: URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au ; Unique identifier: ACTRN12615000861550.