Taishi Hirai, MD

Study 1 Overview (SCOT-HEART Investigators)

Objective: To assess cardiovascular mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction at 5 years in patients with stable chest pain referred to cardiology clinic for management with either standard care plus computed tomography angiography (CTA) or standard care alone.

Design: Multicenter, randomized, open-label prospective study.

Setting and participants: A total of 4146 patients with stable chest pain were randomized to standard care or standard care plus CTA at 12 centers across Scotland and were followed for 5 years.

Main outcome measures: The primary end point was a composite of death from coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Main secondary end points were nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and frequency of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and coronary revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting.

Main results: The primary outcome including the composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction was lower in the CTA group than in the standard-care group at 2.3% (48 of 2073 patients) vs 3.9% (81 of 2073 patients), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84; P = .004). Although there was a higher rate of ICA and coronary revascularization in the CTA group than in the standard-care group in the first few months of follow-up, the overall rates were similar at 5 years, with ICA performed in 491 patients and 502 patients in the CTA vs standard-care groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88-1.13). Similarly, coronary revascularization was performed in 279 patients in the CTA group and in 267 patients in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.91-1.27). There were, however, more preventive therapies initiated in patients in the CTA group than in the standard-care group (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.19-1.65).

Conclusion: In patients with stable chest pain, the use of CTA in addition to standard care resulted in a significantly lower rate of death from coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 5 years; the main contributor to this outcome was a reduced nonfatal myocardial infarction rate. There was no difference in the rate of coronary angiography or coronary revascularization between the 2 groups at 5 years.

Study 2 Overview (DISCHARGE Trial Group)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of computed tomography (CT) with ICA as a diagnostic tool in patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of coronary artery disease (CAD).

Design: Multicenter, randomized, assessor-blinded pragmatic prospective study.

Setting and participants: A total of 3667 patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD were enrolled at 26 centers and randomized into CT or ICA groups. Only 3561 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, with 1808 patients and 1753 patients in the CT and ICA groups, respectively.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke over 3.5 years. The main secondary outcomes were major procedure-related complications and patient-reported angina pectoris during the last 4 weeks of follow up.

Main results: The primary outcome occurred in 38 of 1808 patients (2.1%) in the CT group and in 52 of 1753 patients (3.0%) in the ICA group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.46-1.07; P = .10). The secondary outcomes showed that major procedure-related complications occurred in 9 patients (0.5%) in the CT group and in 33 patients (1.9%) in the ICA group (hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55). Rates of patient-reported angina in the final 4 weeks of follow-up were 8.8% in the CT group and 7.5% in the ICA group (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.92-1.48).

Conclusion: Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events from the primary outcome were similar in both the CT and ICA groups among patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD. Patients referred for CT had a lower rate of coronary angiography leading to fewer major procedure-related complications in these patients than in those referred for ICA.

Evaluation and treatment of obstructive atherosclerosis is an important part of clinical care in patients presenting with angina symptoms.¹ Thus, the initial investigation for patients with suspected obstructive CAD includes ruling out acute coronary syndrome and assessing quality of life.¹ The diagnostic test should be tailored to the pretest probability for the diagnosis of obstructive CAD.²

In the United States, stress testing traditionally has been used for the initial assessment in patients with suspected CAD,³ but recently CTA has been utilized more frequently for this purpose. Compared to a stress test, which often helps identify and assess ischemia, CTA can provide anatomical assessment, with higher sensitivity to identify CAD.⁴ Furthermore, it can distinguish nonobstructive plaques that can be challenging to identify with stress test alone.

Whether CTA is superior to stress testing as the initial assessment for CAD has been debated. The randomized PROMISE trial compared patients with stable angina who underwent functional stress testing or CTA as an initial strategy.⁵ They reported a similar outcome between the 2 groups at a median follow-up of 2 years. However, in the original SCOT-HEART trial (CT coronary angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease), which was published in the same year as the PROMISE trial, the patients who underwent initial assessment with CTA had a numerically lower composite end point of cardiac death and myocardial infarction at a median follow-up of 1.7 years (1.3% vs 2.0%, P = .053).⁶

Given this result, the SCOT-HEART investigators extended the follow-up to evaluate the composite end point of death from coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 5 years.⁷ This trial enrolled patients who were initially referred to a cardiology clinic for evaluation of chest pain, and they were randomized to standard care plus CTA or standard care alone. At a median duration of 4.8 years, the primary outcome was lower in the CTA group (2.3%, 48 patients) than in the standard-care group (3.9%, 81 patients) (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84; P = .004). Both groups had similar rates of invasive coronary angiography and had similar coronary revascularization rates.

It is hypothesized that this lower rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction in patients with CTA plus standard care is associated with a higher rate of preventive therapies initiated in patients in the CTA-plus-standard-care group compared to standard care alone. However, the difference in the standard-care group should be noted when compared to the PROMISE trial. In the PROMISE trial, the comparator group had predominantly stress imaging (either nuclear stress test or echocardiography), while in the SCOT-HEART trial, the group had predominantly stress electrocardiogram (ECG), and only 10% of the patients underwent stress imaging. It is possible the difference seen in the rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction was due to suboptimal diagnosis of CAD with stress ECG, which has lower sensitivity compared to stress imaging.

The DISCHARGE trial investigated the effectiveness of CTA vs ICA as the initial diagnostic test in the management of patients with stable chest pain and an intermediate pretest probability of obstructive CAD.⁸ At 3.5 years of follow-up, the primary composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was similar in both groups (2.1% vs 3.0; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.46-1.07; P = .10). Importantly, as fewer patients underwent ICA, the risk of procedure-related complication was lower in the CTA group than in the ICA group. However, it is important to note that only 25% of the patients diagnosed with obstructive CAD had greater than 50% vessel stenosis, which raises the question of whether an initial invasive strategy is appropriate for this population.

The strengths of these 2 studies include the large number of patients enrolled along with adequate follow-up, 5 years in the SCOT-HEART trial and 3.5 years in the DISCHARGE trial. The 2 studies overall suggest the usefulness of CTA for assessment of CAD. However, the control groups were very different in these 2 trials. In the SCOT-HEART study, the comparator group was primarily assessed by stress ECG, while in the DISCHARGE study, the comparator group was primary assessed by ICA. In the PROMISE trial, the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or major procedural complication was similar when the strategy of initial CTA was compared to functional testing with imaging (exercise ECG, nuclear stress testing, or echocardiography).⁵ Thus, clinical assessment is still needed when clinicians are selecting the appropriate diagnostic test for patients with suspected CAD. The most recent guidelines give similar recommendations for CTA compared to stress imaging.⁹ Whether further improvement in CTA acquisition or the addition of CT fractional flow reserve can further improve outcomes requires additional study.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

In patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD, CTA is useful in diagnosis compared to stress ECG and in reducing utilization of low-yield ICA. Whether CTA is more useful compared to the other noninvasive stress imaging modalities in this population requires further study.

Practice Points

• In patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD, CTA is useful compared to stress ECG.
• Use of CTA can potentially reduce the use of low-yield coronary angiography.

–Thai Nguyen, MD, Albert Chan, MD, Taishi Hirai, MD
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Study 1 Overview (SCOT-HEART Investigators)

Objective: To assess cardiovascular mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction at 5 years in patients with stable chest pain referred to cardiology clinic for management with either standard care plus computed tomography angiography (CTA) or standard care alone.

Design: Multicenter, randomized, open-label prospective study.

Setting and participants: A total of 4146 patients with stable chest pain were randomized to standard care or standard care plus CTA at 12 centers across Scotland and were followed for 5 years.

Main outcome measures: The primary end point was a composite of death from coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Main secondary end points were nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and frequency of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and coronary revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting.

Main results: The primary outcome including the composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction was lower in the CTA group than in the standard-care group at 2.3% (48 of 2073 patients) vs 3.9% (81 of 2073 patients), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84; P = .004). Although there was a higher rate of ICA and coronary revascularization in the CTA group than in the standard-care group in the first few months of follow-up, the overall rates were similar at 5 years, with ICA performed in 491 patients and 502 patients in the CTA vs standard-care groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88-1.13). Similarly, coronary revascularization was performed in 279 patients in the CTA group and in 267 patients in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.91-1.27). There were, however, more preventive therapies initiated in patients in the CTA group than in the standard-care group (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.19-1.65).

Conclusion: In patients with stable chest pain, the use of CTA in addition to standard care resulted in a significantly lower rate of death from coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 5 years; the main contributor to this outcome was a reduced nonfatal myocardial infarction rate. There was no difference in the rate of coronary angiography or coronary revascularization between the 2 groups at 5 years.

Study 2 Overview (DISCHARGE Trial Group)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of computed tomography (CT) with ICA as a diagnostic tool in patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of coronary artery disease (CAD).

Design: Multicenter, randomized, assessor-blinded pragmatic prospective study.

Setting and participants: A total of 3667 patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD were enrolled at 26 centers and randomized into CT or ICA groups. Only 3561 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, with 1808 patients and 1753 patients in the CT and ICA groups, respectively.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke over 3.5 years. The main secondary outcomes were major procedure-related complications and patient-reported angina pectoris during the last 4 weeks of follow up.

Main results: The primary outcome occurred in 38 of 1808 patients (2.1%) in the CT group and in 52 of 1753 patients (3.0%) in the ICA group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.46-1.07; P = .10). The secondary outcomes showed that major procedure-related complications occurred in 9 patients (0.5%) in the CT group and in 33 patients (1.9%) in the ICA group (hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55). Rates of patient-reported angina in the final 4 weeks of follow-up were 8.8% in the CT group and 7.5% in the ICA group (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.92-1.48).

Conclusion: Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events from the primary outcome were similar in both the CT and ICA groups among patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD. Patients referred for CT had a lower rate of coronary angiography leading to fewer major procedure-related complications in these patients than in those referred for ICA.

Evaluation and treatment of obstructive atherosclerosis is an important part of clinical care in patients presenting with angina symptoms.¹ Thus, the initial investigation for patients with suspected obstructive CAD includes ruling out acute coronary syndrome and assessing quality of life.¹ The diagnostic test should be tailored to the pretest probability for the diagnosis of obstructive CAD.²

In the United States, stress testing traditionally has been used for the initial assessment in patients with suspected CAD,³ but recently CTA has been utilized more frequently for this purpose. Compared to a stress test, which often helps identify and assess ischemia, CTA can provide anatomical assessment, with higher sensitivity to identify CAD.⁴ Furthermore, it can distinguish nonobstructive plaques that can be challenging to identify with stress test alone.

Whether CTA is superior to stress testing as the initial assessment for CAD has been debated. The randomized PROMISE trial compared patients with stable angina who underwent functional stress testing or CTA as an initial strategy.⁵ They reported a similar outcome between the 2 groups at a median follow-up of 2 years. However, in the original SCOT-HEART trial (CT coronary angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease), which was published in the same year as the PROMISE trial, the patients who underwent initial assessment with CTA had a numerically lower composite end point of cardiac death and myocardial infarction at a median follow-up of 1.7 years (1.3% vs 2.0%, P = .053).⁶

Given this result, the SCOT-HEART investigators extended the follow-up to evaluate the composite end point of death from coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 5 years.⁷ This trial enrolled patients who were initially referred to a cardiology clinic for evaluation of chest pain, and they were randomized to standard care plus CTA or standard care alone. At a median duration of 4.8 years, the primary outcome was lower in the CTA group (2.3%, 48 patients) than in the standard-care group (3.9%, 81 patients) (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84; P = .004). Both groups had similar rates of invasive coronary angiography and had similar coronary revascularization rates.

It is hypothesized that this lower rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction in patients with CTA plus standard care is associated with a higher rate of preventive therapies initiated in patients in the CTA-plus-standard-care group compared to standard care alone. However, the difference in the standard-care group should be noted when compared to the PROMISE trial. In the PROMISE trial, the comparator group had predominantly stress imaging (either nuclear stress test or echocardiography), while in the SCOT-HEART trial, the group had predominantly stress electrocardiogram (ECG), and only 10% of the patients underwent stress imaging. It is possible the difference seen in the rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction was due to suboptimal diagnosis of CAD with stress ECG, which has lower sensitivity compared to stress imaging.

The DISCHARGE trial investigated the effectiveness of CTA vs ICA as the initial diagnostic test in the management of patients with stable chest pain and an intermediate pretest probability of obstructive CAD.⁸ At 3.5 years of follow-up, the primary composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was similar in both groups (2.1% vs 3.0; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.46-1.07; P = .10). Importantly, as fewer patients underwent ICA, the risk of procedure-related complication was lower in the CTA group than in the ICA group. However, it is important to note that only 25% of the patients diagnosed with obstructive CAD had greater than 50% vessel stenosis, which raises the question of whether an initial invasive strategy is appropriate for this population.

The strengths of these 2 studies include the large number of patients enrolled along with adequate follow-up, 5 years in the SCOT-HEART trial and 3.5 years in the DISCHARGE trial. The 2 studies overall suggest the usefulness of CTA for assessment of CAD. However, the control groups were very different in these 2 trials. In the SCOT-HEART study, the comparator group was primarily assessed by stress ECG, while in the DISCHARGE study, the comparator group was primary assessed by ICA. In the PROMISE trial, the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or major procedural complication was similar when the strategy of initial CTA was compared to functional testing with imaging (exercise ECG, nuclear stress testing, or echocardiography).⁵ Thus, clinical assessment is still needed when clinicians are selecting the appropriate diagnostic test for patients with suspected CAD. The most recent guidelines give similar recommendations for CTA compared to stress imaging.⁹ Whether further improvement in CTA acquisition or the addition of CT fractional flow reserve can further improve outcomes requires additional study.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

In patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD, CTA is useful in diagnosis compared to stress ECG and in reducing utilization of low-yield ICA. Whether CTA is more useful compared to the other noninvasive stress imaging modalities in this population requires further study.

Practice Points

• In patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD, CTA is useful compared to stress ECG.
• Use of CTA can potentially reduce the use of low-yield coronary angiography.

–Thai Nguyen, MD, Albert Chan, MD, Taishi Hirai, MD
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Study 1 Overview (SCOT-HEART Investigators)

Objective: To assess cardiovascular mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction at 5 years in patients with stable chest pain referred to cardiology clinic for management with either standard care plus computed tomography angiography (CTA) or standard care alone.

Design: Multicenter, randomized, open-label prospective study.

Setting and participants: A total of 4146 patients with stable chest pain were randomized to standard care or standard care plus CTA at 12 centers across Scotland and were followed for 5 years.

Main outcome measures: The primary end point was a composite of death from coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Main secondary end points were nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and frequency of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and coronary revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting.

Main results: The primary outcome including the composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction was lower in the CTA group than in the standard-care group at 2.3% (48 of 2073 patients) vs 3.9% (81 of 2073 patients), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84; P = .004). Although there was a higher rate of ICA and coronary revascularization in the CTA group than in the standard-care group in the first few months of follow-up, the overall rates were similar at 5 years, with ICA performed in 491 patients and 502 patients in the CTA vs standard-care groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88-1.13). Similarly, coronary revascularization was performed in 279 patients in the CTA group and in 267 patients in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.91-1.27). There were, however, more preventive therapies initiated in patients in the CTA group than in the standard-care group (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.19-1.65).

Conclusion: In patients with stable chest pain, the use of CTA in addition to standard care resulted in a significantly lower rate of death from coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 5 years; the main contributor to this outcome was a reduced nonfatal myocardial infarction rate. There was no difference in the rate of coronary angiography or coronary revascularization between the 2 groups at 5 years.

Study 2 Overview (DISCHARGE Trial Group)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of computed tomography (CT) with ICA as a diagnostic tool in patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of coronary artery disease (CAD).

Design: Multicenter, randomized, assessor-blinded pragmatic prospective study.

Setting and participants: A total of 3667 patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD were enrolled at 26 centers and randomized into CT or ICA groups. Only 3561 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, with 1808 patients and 1753 patients in the CT and ICA groups, respectively.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke over 3.5 years. The main secondary outcomes were major procedure-related complications and patient-reported angina pectoris during the last 4 weeks of follow up.

Main results: The primary outcome occurred in 38 of 1808 patients (2.1%) in the CT group and in 52 of 1753 patients (3.0%) in the ICA group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.46-1.07; P = .10). The secondary outcomes showed that major procedure-related complications occurred in 9 patients (0.5%) in the CT group and in 33 patients (1.9%) in the ICA group (hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55). Rates of patient-reported angina in the final 4 weeks of follow-up were 8.8% in the CT group and 7.5% in the ICA group (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.92-1.48).

Conclusion: Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events from the primary outcome were similar in both the CT and ICA groups among patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD. Patients referred for CT had a lower rate of coronary angiography leading to fewer major procedure-related complications in these patients than in those referred for ICA.

Evaluation and treatment of obstructive atherosclerosis is an important part of clinical care in patients presenting with angina symptoms.¹ Thus, the initial investigation for patients with suspected obstructive CAD includes ruling out acute coronary syndrome and assessing quality of life.¹ The diagnostic test should be tailored to the pretest probability for the diagnosis of obstructive CAD.²

In the United States, stress testing traditionally has been used for the initial assessment in patients with suspected CAD,³ but recently CTA has been utilized more frequently for this purpose. Compared to a stress test, which often helps identify and assess ischemia, CTA can provide anatomical assessment, with higher sensitivity to identify CAD.⁴ Furthermore, it can distinguish nonobstructive plaques that can be challenging to identify with stress test alone.

Whether CTA is superior to stress testing as the initial assessment for CAD has been debated. The randomized PROMISE trial compared patients with stable angina who underwent functional stress testing or CTA as an initial strategy.⁵ They reported a similar outcome between the 2 groups at a median follow-up of 2 years. However, in the original SCOT-HEART trial (CT coronary angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease), which was published in the same year as the PROMISE trial, the patients who underwent initial assessment with CTA had a numerically lower composite end point of cardiac death and myocardial infarction at a median follow-up of 1.7 years (1.3% vs 2.0%, P = .053).⁶

Given this result, the SCOT-HEART investigators extended the follow-up to evaluate the composite end point of death from coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 5 years.⁷ This trial enrolled patients who were initially referred to a cardiology clinic for evaluation of chest pain, and they were randomized to standard care plus CTA or standard care alone. At a median duration of 4.8 years, the primary outcome was lower in the CTA group (2.3%, 48 patients) than in the standard-care group (3.9%, 81 patients) (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84; P = .004). Both groups had similar rates of invasive coronary angiography and had similar coronary revascularization rates.

It is hypothesized that this lower rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction in patients with CTA plus standard care is associated with a higher rate of preventive therapies initiated in patients in the CTA-plus-standard-care group compared to standard care alone. However, the difference in the standard-care group should be noted when compared to the PROMISE trial. In the PROMISE trial, the comparator group had predominantly stress imaging (either nuclear stress test or echocardiography), while in the SCOT-HEART trial, the group had predominantly stress electrocardiogram (ECG), and only 10% of the patients underwent stress imaging. It is possible the difference seen in the rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction was due to suboptimal diagnosis of CAD with stress ECG, which has lower sensitivity compared to stress imaging.

The DISCHARGE trial investigated the effectiveness of CTA vs ICA as the initial diagnostic test in the management of patients with stable chest pain and an intermediate pretest probability of obstructive CAD.⁸ At 3.5 years of follow-up, the primary composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was similar in both groups (2.1% vs 3.0; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.46-1.07; P = .10). Importantly, as fewer patients underwent ICA, the risk of procedure-related complication was lower in the CTA group than in the ICA group. However, it is important to note that only 25% of the patients diagnosed with obstructive CAD had greater than 50% vessel stenosis, which raises the question of whether an initial invasive strategy is appropriate for this population.

The strengths of these 2 studies include the large number of patients enrolled along with adequate follow-up, 5 years in the SCOT-HEART trial and 3.5 years in the DISCHARGE trial. The 2 studies overall suggest the usefulness of CTA for assessment of CAD. However, the control groups were very different in these 2 trials. In the SCOT-HEART study, the comparator group was primarily assessed by stress ECG, while in the DISCHARGE study, the comparator group was primary assessed by ICA. In the PROMISE trial, the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or major procedural complication was similar when the strategy of initial CTA was compared to functional testing with imaging (exercise ECG, nuclear stress testing, or echocardiography).⁵ Thus, clinical assessment is still needed when clinicians are selecting the appropriate diagnostic test for patients with suspected CAD. The most recent guidelines give similar recommendations for CTA compared to stress imaging.⁹ Whether further improvement in CTA acquisition or the addition of CT fractional flow reserve can further improve outcomes requires additional study.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

In patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD, CTA is useful in diagnosis compared to stress ECG and in reducing utilization of low-yield ICA. Whether CTA is more useful compared to the other noninvasive stress imaging modalities in this population requires further study.

Practice Points

• In patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD, CTA is useful compared to stress ECG.
• Use of CTA can potentially reduce the use of low-yield coronary angiography.

–Thai Nguyen, MD, Albert Chan, MD, Taishi Hirai, MD
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Study Overview

Objective: To determine whether fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is noninferior to coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

Design: Investigator-initiated, multicenter, international, randomized, controlled trial conducted at 48 sites.

Setting and participants: A total of 1500 patients with angiographically identified 3-vessel CAD not involving the left main coronary artery were randomly assigned to receive FFR-guided PCI with zotarolimus-eluting stents or CABG in a 1:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified according to trial site and diabetes status.

Main outcome measures: The primary end point was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event, defined as death from any cause, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or repeat revascularization. The secondary end point was defined as a composite of death, MI, or stroke.

Results: At 1 year, the incidence of the composite primary end point was 10.6% for patients with FFR-guided PCI and 6.9% for patients with CABG (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = .35 for noninferiority), which was not consistent with noninferiority of FFR-guided PCI compared to CABG. The secondary end point occurred in 7.3% of patients in the FFR-guided PCI group compared with 5.2% in the CABG group (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.9-2.1). Individual findings for the outcomes comprising the primary end point for the FFR-guided PCI group vs the CABG group were as follows: death, 1.6% vs 0.9%; MI, 5.2% vs 3.5%; stroke, 0.9% vs 1.1%; and repeat revascularization, 5.9% vs 3.9%. The CABG group had more extended hospital stays and higher incidences of major bleeding, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and rehospitalization within 30 days than the FFR-guided PCI group.

Conclusion: FFR-guided PCI was not found to be noninferior to CABG with respect to the incidence of a composite of death, MI, stroke, or repeat revascularization at 1 year.

Commentary

Revascularization for multivessel CAD can be performed by CABG or PCI. Previous studies have shown superior outcomes in patients with multivessel CAD who were treated with CABG compared to PCI.^1-3 The Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial, which compared CABG to PCI in patients with multivessel disease or unprotected left main CAD, stratified the anatomic complexity based on SYNTAX score and found that patients with higher anatomic complexity with a high SYNTAX score derive larger benefit from CABG compared to PCI.⁴ Therefore, the current guidelines favor CABG over PCI in patients with severe 3-vessel disease, except for patients with a lower SYNTAX score (<22) without diabetes.^5,6 However, except for a smaller size study,³ the previous trials that led to this recommendation used mostly first-generation drug-eluting stents and have not evaluated second-generation stents that have lower rates of in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis. In addition, there have been significant improvements in PCI techniques since the study period, including the adoption of a radial approach and superior adjunct pharmacologic therapy. Furthermore, previous studies have not systematically investigated the use of FFR-guided PCI, which has been shown to be superior to angiography-guided PCI or medical treatment alone.^7-9

In this context, Fearon and the FAME-3 trial investigators studied the use of FFR-guided PCI with second-generation zotarolimus drug-eluting stents compared to CABG in patients with 3-vessel CAD. They randomized patients with angiographically identified 3-vessel CAD in a 1:1 ratio to receive FFR-guided PCI or CABG at 48 sites internationally. Patients with left main CAD, recent ST-elevation MI, cardiogenic shock, and left-ventricular ejection fraction <30% were excluded. The study results (composite primary end point incidence of 10.6% for patients with FFR-guided PCI vs 6.9% in the CABG group [HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = 0.35 for noninferiority]) showed that FFR-guided PCI did not meet the noninferiority criterion.

Although the FAME-3 study is an important study, there are a few points to consider. First, 24% of the lesions had a FFR measured at >0.80. The benefit of FFR-guided PCI lies in the number of lesions that are safely deferred compared to angiography-guided PCI. The small number of deferred lesions could have limited the benefit of FFR guidance compared with angiography. Second, this study did not include all comers who had angiographic 3-vessel disease. Patients who had FFR assessment of moderate lesions at the time of diagnostic angiogram and were found to have FFR >0.80 or were deemed single- or 2-vessel disease were likely treated with PCI. Therefore, as the authors point out, the patients included in this study may have been skewed to a higher-risk population compared to previous studies.

Third, the study may not reflect contemporary interventional practice, as the use of intravascular ultrasound was very low (12%). Intravascular ultrasound–guided PCI has been associated with increased luminal gain and improved outcomes compared to angiography-guided PCI.¹⁰ Although 20% of the patients in each arm were found to have chronic total occlusions, the completeness of revascularization has not yet been reported. It is possible that the PCI arm had fewer complete revascularizations, which has been shown in previous observational studies to be associated with worse clinical outcomes.^11,12

Although the current guidelines favor CABG over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, this recommendation is stratified by anatomic complexity.⁶ In fact, in the European guidelines, CABG and PCI are both class I recommendations for the treatment of 3-vessel disease with low SYNTAX score in patients without diabetes.⁵ Although the FAME-3 study failed to show noninferiority in the overall population, when stratified by the SYNTAX score, the major adverse cardiac event rate for the PCI group was numerically lower than that of the CABG group. The results from the FAME-3 study are overall in line with the previous studies and the current guidelines. Future studies are necessary to assess the outcomes of multivessel PCI compared to CABG using the most contemporary interventional practice and achieving complete revascularization in the PCI arm.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients with 3-vessel disease, FFR-guided PCI was not found to be noninferior to CABG; this finding is consistent with previous studies.

—Shubham Kanake, BS, Chirag Bavishi, MD, MPH, and Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective: To determine whether fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is noninferior to coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

Design: Investigator-initiated, multicenter, international, randomized, controlled trial conducted at 48 sites.

Setting and participants: A total of 1500 patients with angiographically identified 3-vessel CAD not involving the left main coronary artery were randomly assigned to receive FFR-guided PCI with zotarolimus-eluting stents or CABG in a 1:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified according to trial site and diabetes status.

Main outcome measures: The primary end point was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event, defined as death from any cause, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or repeat revascularization. The secondary end point was defined as a composite of death, MI, or stroke.

Results: At 1 year, the incidence of the composite primary end point was 10.6% for patients with FFR-guided PCI and 6.9% for patients with CABG (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = .35 for noninferiority), which was not consistent with noninferiority of FFR-guided PCI compared to CABG. The secondary end point occurred in 7.3% of patients in the FFR-guided PCI group compared with 5.2% in the CABG group (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.9-2.1). Individual findings for the outcomes comprising the primary end point for the FFR-guided PCI group vs the CABG group were as follows: death, 1.6% vs 0.9%; MI, 5.2% vs 3.5%; stroke, 0.9% vs 1.1%; and repeat revascularization, 5.9% vs 3.9%. The CABG group had more extended hospital stays and higher incidences of major bleeding, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and rehospitalization within 30 days than the FFR-guided PCI group.

Conclusion: FFR-guided PCI was not found to be noninferior to CABG with respect to the incidence of a composite of death, MI, stroke, or repeat revascularization at 1 year.

Commentary

Revascularization for multivessel CAD can be performed by CABG or PCI. Previous studies have shown superior outcomes in patients with multivessel CAD who were treated with CABG compared to PCI.^1-3 The Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial, which compared CABG to PCI in patients with multivessel disease or unprotected left main CAD, stratified the anatomic complexity based on SYNTAX score and found that patients with higher anatomic complexity with a high SYNTAX score derive larger benefit from CABG compared to PCI.⁴ Therefore, the current guidelines favor CABG over PCI in patients with severe 3-vessel disease, except for patients with a lower SYNTAX score (<22) without diabetes.^5,6 However, except for a smaller size study,³ the previous trials that led to this recommendation used mostly first-generation drug-eluting stents and have not evaluated second-generation stents that have lower rates of in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis. In addition, there have been significant improvements in PCI techniques since the study period, including the adoption of a radial approach and superior adjunct pharmacologic therapy. Furthermore, previous studies have not systematically investigated the use of FFR-guided PCI, which has been shown to be superior to angiography-guided PCI or medical treatment alone.^7-9

In this context, Fearon and the FAME-3 trial investigators studied the use of FFR-guided PCI with second-generation zotarolimus drug-eluting stents compared to CABG in patients with 3-vessel CAD. They randomized patients with angiographically identified 3-vessel CAD in a 1:1 ratio to receive FFR-guided PCI or CABG at 48 sites internationally. Patients with left main CAD, recent ST-elevation MI, cardiogenic shock, and left-ventricular ejection fraction <30% were excluded. The study results (composite primary end point incidence of 10.6% for patients with FFR-guided PCI vs 6.9% in the CABG group [HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = 0.35 for noninferiority]) showed that FFR-guided PCI did not meet the noninferiority criterion.

Although the FAME-3 study is an important study, there are a few points to consider. First, 24% of the lesions had a FFR measured at >0.80. The benefit of FFR-guided PCI lies in the number of lesions that are safely deferred compared to angiography-guided PCI. The small number of deferred lesions could have limited the benefit of FFR guidance compared with angiography. Second, this study did not include all comers who had angiographic 3-vessel disease. Patients who had FFR assessment of moderate lesions at the time of diagnostic angiogram and were found to have FFR >0.80 or were deemed single- or 2-vessel disease were likely treated with PCI. Therefore, as the authors point out, the patients included in this study may have been skewed to a higher-risk population compared to previous studies.

Third, the study may not reflect contemporary interventional practice, as the use of intravascular ultrasound was very low (12%). Intravascular ultrasound–guided PCI has been associated with increased luminal gain and improved outcomes compared to angiography-guided PCI.¹⁰ Although 20% of the patients in each arm were found to have chronic total occlusions, the completeness of revascularization has not yet been reported. It is possible that the PCI arm had fewer complete revascularizations, which has been shown in previous observational studies to be associated with worse clinical outcomes.^11,12

Although the current guidelines favor CABG over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, this recommendation is stratified by anatomic complexity.⁶ In fact, in the European guidelines, CABG and PCI are both class I recommendations for the treatment of 3-vessel disease with low SYNTAX score in patients without diabetes.⁵ Although the FAME-3 study failed to show noninferiority in the overall population, when stratified by the SYNTAX score, the major adverse cardiac event rate for the PCI group was numerically lower than that of the CABG group. The results from the FAME-3 study are overall in line with the previous studies and the current guidelines. Future studies are necessary to assess the outcomes of multivessel PCI compared to CABG using the most contemporary interventional practice and achieving complete revascularization in the PCI arm.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients with 3-vessel disease, FFR-guided PCI was not found to be noninferior to CABG; this finding is consistent with previous studies.

—Shubham Kanake, BS, Chirag Bavishi, MD, MPH, and Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective: To determine whether fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is noninferior to coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

Design: Investigator-initiated, multicenter, international, randomized, controlled trial conducted at 48 sites.

Setting and participants: A total of 1500 patients with angiographically identified 3-vessel CAD not involving the left main coronary artery were randomly assigned to receive FFR-guided PCI with zotarolimus-eluting stents or CABG in a 1:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified according to trial site and diabetes status.

Main outcome measures: The primary end point was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event, defined as death from any cause, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or repeat revascularization. The secondary end point was defined as a composite of death, MI, or stroke.

Results: At 1 year, the incidence of the composite primary end point was 10.6% for patients with FFR-guided PCI and 6.9% for patients with CABG (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = .35 for noninferiority), which was not consistent with noninferiority of FFR-guided PCI compared to CABG. The secondary end point occurred in 7.3% of patients in the FFR-guided PCI group compared with 5.2% in the CABG group (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.9-2.1). Individual findings for the outcomes comprising the primary end point for the FFR-guided PCI group vs the CABG group were as follows: death, 1.6% vs 0.9%; MI, 5.2% vs 3.5%; stroke, 0.9% vs 1.1%; and repeat revascularization, 5.9% vs 3.9%. The CABG group had more extended hospital stays and higher incidences of major bleeding, arrhythmia, acute kidney injury, and rehospitalization within 30 days than the FFR-guided PCI group.

Conclusion: FFR-guided PCI was not found to be noninferior to CABG with respect to the incidence of a composite of death, MI, stroke, or repeat revascularization at 1 year.

Commentary

Revascularization for multivessel CAD can be performed by CABG or PCI. Previous studies have shown superior outcomes in patients with multivessel CAD who were treated with CABG compared to PCI.^1-3 The Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial, which compared CABG to PCI in patients with multivessel disease or unprotected left main CAD, stratified the anatomic complexity based on SYNTAX score and found that patients with higher anatomic complexity with a high SYNTAX score derive larger benefit from CABG compared to PCI.⁴ Therefore, the current guidelines favor CABG over PCI in patients with severe 3-vessel disease, except for patients with a lower SYNTAX score (<22) without diabetes.^5,6 However, except for a smaller size study,³ the previous trials that led to this recommendation used mostly first-generation drug-eluting stents and have not evaluated second-generation stents that have lower rates of in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis. In addition, there have been significant improvements in PCI techniques since the study period, including the adoption of a radial approach and superior adjunct pharmacologic therapy. Furthermore, previous studies have not systematically investigated the use of FFR-guided PCI, which has been shown to be superior to angiography-guided PCI or medical treatment alone.^7-9

In this context, Fearon and the FAME-3 trial investigators studied the use of FFR-guided PCI with second-generation zotarolimus drug-eluting stents compared to CABG in patients with 3-vessel CAD. They randomized patients with angiographically identified 3-vessel CAD in a 1:1 ratio to receive FFR-guided PCI or CABG at 48 sites internationally. Patients with left main CAD, recent ST-elevation MI, cardiogenic shock, and left-ventricular ejection fraction <30% were excluded. The study results (composite primary end point incidence of 10.6% for patients with FFR-guided PCI vs 6.9% in the CABG group [HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = 0.35 for noninferiority]) showed that FFR-guided PCI did not meet the noninferiority criterion.

Although the FAME-3 study is an important study, there are a few points to consider. First, 24% of the lesions had a FFR measured at >0.80. The benefit of FFR-guided PCI lies in the number of lesions that are safely deferred compared to angiography-guided PCI. The small number of deferred lesions could have limited the benefit of FFR guidance compared with angiography. Second, this study did not include all comers who had angiographic 3-vessel disease. Patients who had FFR assessment of moderate lesions at the time of diagnostic angiogram and were found to have FFR >0.80 or were deemed single- or 2-vessel disease were likely treated with PCI. Therefore, as the authors point out, the patients included in this study may have been skewed to a higher-risk population compared to previous studies.

Third, the study may not reflect contemporary interventional practice, as the use of intravascular ultrasound was very low (12%). Intravascular ultrasound–guided PCI has been associated with increased luminal gain and improved outcomes compared to angiography-guided PCI.¹⁰ Although 20% of the patients in each arm were found to have chronic total occlusions, the completeness of revascularization has not yet been reported. It is possible that the PCI arm had fewer complete revascularizations, which has been shown in previous observational studies to be associated with worse clinical outcomes.^11,12

Although the current guidelines favor CABG over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, this recommendation is stratified by anatomic complexity.⁶ In fact, in the European guidelines, CABG and PCI are both class I recommendations for the treatment of 3-vessel disease with low SYNTAX score in patients without diabetes.⁵ Although the FAME-3 study failed to show noninferiority in the overall population, when stratified by the SYNTAX score, the major adverse cardiac event rate for the PCI group was numerically lower than that of the CABG group. The results from the FAME-3 study are overall in line with the previous studies and the current guidelines. Future studies are necessary to assess the outcomes of multivessel PCI compared to CABG using the most contemporary interventional practice and achieving complete revascularization in the PCI arm.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients with 3-vessel disease, FFR-guided PCI was not found to be noninferior to CABG; this finding is consistent with previous studies.

—Shubham Kanake, BS, Chirag Bavishi, MD, MPH, and Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To determine whether fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit lesion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is superior to angiography-guided PCI.

Design. Multicenter randomized control trial blinded to outcome, conducted in 41 sites in France.

Setting and participants. A total of 1163 patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary disease, who had undergone successful PCI to the culprit lesion were randomized to either FFR-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions. Randomization was stratified according to the trial site and timing of the procedure (immediate or staged).

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization at 1 year.

Main results. At 1 year, the primary outcome occurred in 32 of 586 patients (5.5%) in the FFR-guided group and in 24 of 577 (4.2%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% CI, 0.78-2.23; P = .31). The rate of death (1.5% vs 1.7%), nonfatal MI (3.1% vs 1.7%), and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization (3.1% vs 1.7%) were also similar between FFR-guided and angiography-guided groups.

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI of the culprit vessel, an FFR-guided strategy for complete revascularization was not superior to angiography-guided strategy for reducing death, MI, or urgent revascularization at 1 year.

Commentary

Patients presenting with STEMI often have multivessel disease.¹ Recently, multiple studies have reported the benefit of nonculprit vessel revascularization in patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI compared to culprit-only strategy including the most recent COMPLETE trial which showed reduction in death and MI.^2-6 However, the previous studies have variable design in evaluating the nonculprit vessel, some utilized FFR guidance, while others used angiography guidance. Whether FFR-guided PCI of nonculprit vessel can improve outcome in patients presenting STEMI remains unknown.

In the FLOWER-MI study, Puymirat et al investigated the use of FFR compared to angiography-guided nonculprit vessel PCI. A total of 1163 patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI to the culprit vessel, were randomized to either FFR guidance or angiography guidance among 41 centers in France. The authors found that after 1 year, there was no difference in composite endpoint of death, nonfatal MI or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in the FFR-guided group compared to angiography-guided group (5.5% vs 4.2%, HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.678-2.23; P = .31). There was also no difference in individual components of primary outcomes or secondary outcomes such as rate of stent thrombosis, any revascularization, or hospitalization.

There are a few interesting points to consider in this study. Ever since the Fractional Flow Reserve vs Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) trial reported the lower incidence of major adverse events in routine FFR measurement during PCI compared to angiography-guided PCI, physiological assessment has become the gold standard for treatment of stable ischemic heart disease.⁷ However, the results of the current FLOWER-MI trial were not consistent with the FAME trial and there are few possible reasons to consider.

First, the use of FFR in the setting of STEMI is less validated compared to stable ischemic heart disease.⁸ Microvascular dysfunction during the acute phase can affect the FFR reading and the lesion severity can be underestimated.⁸ Second, the rate of composite endpoint was much lower in this study compared to FAME despite using the same composite endpoint of death, nonfatal MI, and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization. At 1 year, the incidence of primary outcome was 13.5% in the FFR-guided group compared to 18.6% in the angiography-guided group in the FAME study compared to 5.5% and 4.2% in the FLOWER-MI study, despite having a sicker population presenting with STEMI. This is likely due to improvement in the PCI techniques such as radial approach, imaging guidance, and advancement in medical therapy such as use of more potent antiplatelet therapy. With lower incidence of primary outcome, larger number of patients are needed to detect the difference in the composite outcome. Finally, the operators’ visual assessment may have been calibrated to the physiologic assessment as the operators are routinely using FFR assessment which may have diminished the benefit of FFR guidance seen in the early FAME study.

Another interesting finding from this study was that although the study protocol encouraged the operators to perform the nonculprit PCI in the same setting, only 4% had nonculprit PCI in the same setting and 96% of the patients underwent a staged PCI. The advantage of performing the nonculprit PCI on the same setting is to have 1 fewer procedure for the patient. On the other hand, the disadvantage of this approach includes prolongation of the index procedure, theoretically higher risk of complication during the acute phase and vasospasm leading to overestimation of the lesion severity. A recent analysis from the COMPLETE study did not show any difference when comparing staged PCI during the index hospitalization vs after discharge.⁹ The optimal timing of the staged PCI needs to be investigated in future studies.

A limitation of this study is the lower than expected incidence of clinical events decreasing the statistical power of the study. However, there was no signal that FFR-guided PCI is better compared to the angiography-guided group. In fact, the curve started to diverge at 6 months favoring the angiography-guided group. In addition, there was no core-lab analysis for completeness of revascularization.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI for undergoing nonculprit vessel PCI, both FFR-guided or angiography-guided strategies can be considered.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To determine whether fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit lesion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is superior to angiography-guided PCI.

Design. Multicenter randomized control trial blinded to outcome, conducted in 41 sites in France.

Setting and participants. A total of 1163 patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary disease, who had undergone successful PCI to the culprit lesion were randomized to either FFR-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions. Randomization was stratified according to the trial site and timing of the procedure (immediate or staged).

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization at 1 year.

Main results. At 1 year, the primary outcome occurred in 32 of 586 patients (5.5%) in the FFR-guided group and in 24 of 577 (4.2%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% CI, 0.78-2.23; P = .31). The rate of death (1.5% vs 1.7%), nonfatal MI (3.1% vs 1.7%), and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization (3.1% vs 1.7%) were also similar between FFR-guided and angiography-guided groups.

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI of the culprit vessel, an FFR-guided strategy for complete revascularization was not superior to angiography-guided strategy for reducing death, MI, or urgent revascularization at 1 year.

Commentary

Patients presenting with STEMI often have multivessel disease.¹ Recently, multiple studies have reported the benefit of nonculprit vessel revascularization in patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI compared to culprit-only strategy including the most recent COMPLETE trial which showed reduction in death and MI.^2-6 However, the previous studies have variable design in evaluating the nonculprit vessel, some utilized FFR guidance, while others used angiography guidance. Whether FFR-guided PCI of nonculprit vessel can improve outcome in patients presenting STEMI remains unknown.

In the FLOWER-MI study, Puymirat et al investigated the use of FFR compared to angiography-guided nonculprit vessel PCI. A total of 1163 patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI to the culprit vessel, were randomized to either FFR guidance or angiography guidance among 41 centers in France. The authors found that after 1 year, there was no difference in composite endpoint of death, nonfatal MI or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in the FFR-guided group compared to angiography-guided group (5.5% vs 4.2%, HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.678-2.23; P = .31). There was also no difference in individual components of primary outcomes or secondary outcomes such as rate of stent thrombosis, any revascularization, or hospitalization.

There are a few interesting points to consider in this study. Ever since the Fractional Flow Reserve vs Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) trial reported the lower incidence of major adverse events in routine FFR measurement during PCI compared to angiography-guided PCI, physiological assessment has become the gold standard for treatment of stable ischemic heart disease.⁷ However, the results of the current FLOWER-MI trial were not consistent with the FAME trial and there are few possible reasons to consider.

First, the use of FFR in the setting of STEMI is less validated compared to stable ischemic heart disease.⁸ Microvascular dysfunction during the acute phase can affect the FFR reading and the lesion severity can be underestimated.⁸ Second, the rate of composite endpoint was much lower in this study compared to FAME despite using the same composite endpoint of death, nonfatal MI, and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization. At 1 year, the incidence of primary outcome was 13.5% in the FFR-guided group compared to 18.6% in the angiography-guided group in the FAME study compared to 5.5% and 4.2% in the FLOWER-MI study, despite having a sicker population presenting with STEMI. This is likely due to improvement in the PCI techniques such as radial approach, imaging guidance, and advancement in medical therapy such as use of more potent antiplatelet therapy. With lower incidence of primary outcome, larger number of patients are needed to detect the difference in the composite outcome. Finally, the operators’ visual assessment may have been calibrated to the physiologic assessment as the operators are routinely using FFR assessment which may have diminished the benefit of FFR guidance seen in the early FAME study.

Another interesting finding from this study was that although the study protocol encouraged the operators to perform the nonculprit PCI in the same setting, only 4% had nonculprit PCI in the same setting and 96% of the patients underwent a staged PCI. The advantage of performing the nonculprit PCI on the same setting is to have 1 fewer procedure for the patient. On the other hand, the disadvantage of this approach includes prolongation of the index procedure, theoretically higher risk of complication during the acute phase and vasospasm leading to overestimation of the lesion severity. A recent analysis from the COMPLETE study did not show any difference when comparing staged PCI during the index hospitalization vs after discharge.⁹ The optimal timing of the staged PCI needs to be investigated in future studies.

A limitation of this study is the lower than expected incidence of clinical events decreasing the statistical power of the study. However, there was no signal that FFR-guided PCI is better compared to the angiography-guided group. In fact, the curve started to diverge at 6 months favoring the angiography-guided group. In addition, there was no core-lab analysis for completeness of revascularization.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI for undergoing nonculprit vessel PCI, both FFR-guided or angiography-guided strategies can be considered.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To determine whether fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit lesion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is superior to angiography-guided PCI.

Design. Multicenter randomized control trial blinded to outcome, conducted in 41 sites in France.

Setting and participants. A total of 1163 patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary disease, who had undergone successful PCI to the culprit lesion were randomized to either FFR-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions. Randomization was stratified according to the trial site and timing of the procedure (immediate or staged).

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization at 1 year.

Main results. At 1 year, the primary outcome occurred in 32 of 586 patients (5.5%) in the FFR-guided group and in 24 of 577 (4.2%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% CI, 0.78-2.23; P = .31). The rate of death (1.5% vs 1.7%), nonfatal MI (3.1% vs 1.7%), and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization (3.1% vs 1.7%) were also similar between FFR-guided and angiography-guided groups.

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI of the culprit vessel, an FFR-guided strategy for complete revascularization was not superior to angiography-guided strategy for reducing death, MI, or urgent revascularization at 1 year.

Commentary

Patients presenting with STEMI often have multivessel disease.¹ Recently, multiple studies have reported the benefit of nonculprit vessel revascularization in patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI compared to culprit-only strategy including the most recent COMPLETE trial which showed reduction in death and MI.^2-6 However, the previous studies have variable design in evaluating the nonculprit vessel, some utilized FFR guidance, while others used angiography guidance. Whether FFR-guided PCI of nonculprit vessel can improve outcome in patients presenting STEMI remains unknown.

In the FLOWER-MI study, Puymirat et al investigated the use of FFR compared to angiography-guided nonculprit vessel PCI. A total of 1163 patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI to the culprit vessel, were randomized to either FFR guidance or angiography guidance among 41 centers in France. The authors found that after 1 year, there was no difference in composite endpoint of death, nonfatal MI or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in the FFR-guided group compared to angiography-guided group (5.5% vs 4.2%, HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.678-2.23; P = .31). There was also no difference in individual components of primary outcomes or secondary outcomes such as rate of stent thrombosis, any revascularization, or hospitalization.

There are a few interesting points to consider in this study. Ever since the Fractional Flow Reserve vs Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) trial reported the lower incidence of major adverse events in routine FFR measurement during PCI compared to angiography-guided PCI, physiological assessment has become the gold standard for treatment of stable ischemic heart disease.⁷ However, the results of the current FLOWER-MI trial were not consistent with the FAME trial and there are few possible reasons to consider.

First, the use of FFR in the setting of STEMI is less validated compared to stable ischemic heart disease.⁸ Microvascular dysfunction during the acute phase can affect the FFR reading and the lesion severity can be underestimated.⁸ Second, the rate of composite endpoint was much lower in this study compared to FAME despite using the same composite endpoint of death, nonfatal MI, and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization. At 1 year, the incidence of primary outcome was 13.5% in the FFR-guided group compared to 18.6% in the angiography-guided group in the FAME study compared to 5.5% and 4.2% in the FLOWER-MI study, despite having a sicker population presenting with STEMI. This is likely due to improvement in the PCI techniques such as radial approach, imaging guidance, and advancement in medical therapy such as use of more potent antiplatelet therapy. With lower incidence of primary outcome, larger number of patients are needed to detect the difference in the composite outcome. Finally, the operators’ visual assessment may have been calibrated to the physiologic assessment as the operators are routinely using FFR assessment which may have diminished the benefit of FFR guidance seen in the early FAME study.

Another interesting finding from this study was that although the study protocol encouraged the operators to perform the nonculprit PCI in the same setting, only 4% had nonculprit PCI in the same setting and 96% of the patients underwent a staged PCI. The advantage of performing the nonculprit PCI on the same setting is to have 1 fewer procedure for the patient. On the other hand, the disadvantage of this approach includes prolongation of the index procedure, theoretically higher risk of complication during the acute phase and vasospasm leading to overestimation of the lesion severity. A recent analysis from the COMPLETE study did not show any difference when comparing staged PCI during the index hospitalization vs after discharge.⁹ The optimal timing of the staged PCI needs to be investigated in future studies.

A limitation of this study is the lower than expected incidence of clinical events decreasing the statistical power of the study. However, there was no signal that FFR-guided PCI is better compared to the angiography-guided group. In fact, the curve started to diverge at 6 months favoring the angiography-guided group. In addition, there was no core-lab analysis for completeness of revascularization.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI for undergoing nonculprit vessel PCI, both FFR-guided or angiography-guided strategies can be considered.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective: To assess whether ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel in reducing periprocedural myocardial necrosis in stable coronary patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Design: Multicenter, open-label, and prospective randomized control trial. Setting and participants: A total of 1910 patients with indication for PCI and at least 1 high risk characteristic were randomized to either ticagrelor or clopidogrel.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the composite of PCI-related type 4a or 4b myocardial infarction or major myocardial injury. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, evaluated within 48 hours of PCI.

Main results: At 48 hours, the primary outcome was observed in 334 of 941 patients (35%) in the ticagrelor group and 341 of 942 patients (36%) in the clopidogrel group (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.17; P = .75). The primary safety outcome did not differ between groups. Minor bleeding events at 30 days were more frequently observed with ticagrelor (11%) than clopidogrel (8%) (1.54; 95% CI 1.12-2.11; P = .007).

Conclusion: Among patients undergoing elective PCI, ticagrelor was not superior to clopidogrel in reducing periprocedural myocardial necrosis. Ticagrelor did not cause increase in major bleeding compared to clopidogrel but did increase the rate of minor bleeding at 30 days.

Commentary

Standard treatment after PCI includes dual antiplatelet therapy combining adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor antagonist and aspirin. The newer generation thienopyridine prasugrel and the reversible direct acting oral antagonist of the ADP receptor ticagrelor, provides consistent and greater antiplatelet effect compared to clopidogrel, and are superior in reducing ischemic events when compared to clopidogrel in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).^1,2 Therefore, current guidelines recommend ticagrelor and prasugrel in preference to clopidogrel in patients presenting with ACS.^3,4 However, whether these findings of improved outcomes with newer agents compared to clopidogrel extends to patients with stable ischemic heart disease presenting for elective PCI is unknown.

In this context, Silvain et al investigated this clinical question and compared ticagrelor and clopidogrel by performing a well-designed multicenter randomized control trial in patients presenting with elective PCI. At 48 hours and at 30 days the composite of PCI-related type 4 myocardial infarction or major myocardial injury defined by the third universal definition⁵ was similar between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups. Although the incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the 2 groups, minor bleeding at 30 days was higher in the ticagrelor group (11%) than clopidogrel (8%) (1.54; 95% CI, 1.12-2.11, P = .007).

The strengths of this current study include the randomized design and the large number of patients enrolled with adequate power to evaluate for superiority of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel. This was a multicenter trial in Europe with 49 participating centers from France and Czech, and the interventional technique used by the operators reflects contemporary technique with 95% use of radial or ulnar access.

There are a few important points to consider in this study. First, the primary outcome was biomarker assessed myocardial necrosis and myocardial injury, and the study was not powered to assess the hard outcomes such as death and myocardial infarction. Although there have been previous reports describing the relationship between the postprocedural myocardial necrosis with worse outcomes, the definition of myocardial necrosis post-PCI and its relationship with hard outcomes remains controversial. Second, half of the patients enrolled were on chronic clopidogrel therapy which suggests that patients with inadequate platelet inhibition with clopidogrel may be under-represented in this cohort. Third, this was an open-label study and the knowledge of agent used could have affected the study results. Finally, whether the population included represents a true high-risk population is questionable. Some of the prespecified high-risk features necessary to enter the study was relatively light, such as presence of diabetes mellitus or body mass index > 30 kg/m² compared to other criteria such as bifurcation stenting or left main stenting.

Currently, when treating patients with stable ischemic heart disease with higher risk anatomy, some operators may use ticagrelor over clopidogrel by extrapolating the study results from the ACS population. However, the results from the current study do not support the uniform use of ticagrelor in stable patients and suggests that the use of clopidogrel continues to be the standard of care. This is especially relevant considering the cost difference for the 2 agents studied. Whether there is a subgroup that benefits from ticagrelor use, such as patients with unprotected left main stenting or bifurcation stenting with 2 stent strategies, requires further investigation.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI, ticagrelor did not lower composite of periprocedural myocardial infarction and myocardial injury at 48 hours. Clopidogrel continues to be a first line treatment after elective PCI.

Study Overview

Objective: To assess whether ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel in reducing periprocedural myocardial necrosis in stable coronary patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Design: Multicenter, open-label, and prospective randomized control trial. Setting and participants: A total of 1910 patients with indication for PCI and at least 1 high risk characteristic were randomized to either ticagrelor or clopidogrel.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the composite of PCI-related type 4a or 4b myocardial infarction or major myocardial injury. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, evaluated within 48 hours of PCI.

Main results: At 48 hours, the primary outcome was observed in 334 of 941 patients (35%) in the ticagrelor group and 341 of 942 patients (36%) in the clopidogrel group (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.17; P = .75). The primary safety outcome did not differ between groups. Minor bleeding events at 30 days were more frequently observed with ticagrelor (11%) than clopidogrel (8%) (1.54; 95% CI 1.12-2.11; P = .007).

Conclusion: Among patients undergoing elective PCI, ticagrelor was not superior to clopidogrel in reducing periprocedural myocardial necrosis. Ticagrelor did not cause increase in major bleeding compared to clopidogrel but did increase the rate of minor bleeding at 30 days.

Commentary

Standard treatment after PCI includes dual antiplatelet therapy combining adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor antagonist and aspirin. The newer generation thienopyridine prasugrel and the reversible direct acting oral antagonist of the ADP receptor ticagrelor, provides consistent and greater antiplatelet effect compared to clopidogrel, and are superior in reducing ischemic events when compared to clopidogrel in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).^1,2 Therefore, current guidelines recommend ticagrelor and prasugrel in preference to clopidogrel in patients presenting with ACS.^3,4 However, whether these findings of improved outcomes with newer agents compared to clopidogrel extends to patients with stable ischemic heart disease presenting for elective PCI is unknown.

In this context, Silvain et al investigated this clinical question and compared ticagrelor and clopidogrel by performing a well-designed multicenter randomized control trial in patients presenting with elective PCI. At 48 hours and at 30 days the composite of PCI-related type 4 myocardial infarction or major myocardial injury defined by the third universal definition⁵ was similar between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups. Although the incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the 2 groups, minor bleeding at 30 days was higher in the ticagrelor group (11%) than clopidogrel (8%) (1.54; 95% CI, 1.12-2.11, P = .007).

The strengths of this current study include the randomized design and the large number of patients enrolled with adequate power to evaluate for superiority of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel. This was a multicenter trial in Europe with 49 participating centers from France and Czech, and the interventional technique used by the operators reflects contemporary technique with 95% use of radial or ulnar access.

There are a few important points to consider in this study. First, the primary outcome was biomarker assessed myocardial necrosis and myocardial injury, and the study was not powered to assess the hard outcomes such as death and myocardial infarction. Although there have been previous reports describing the relationship between the postprocedural myocardial necrosis with worse outcomes, the definition of myocardial necrosis post-PCI and its relationship with hard outcomes remains controversial. Second, half of the patients enrolled were on chronic clopidogrel therapy which suggests that patients with inadequate platelet inhibition with clopidogrel may be under-represented in this cohort. Third, this was an open-label study and the knowledge of agent used could have affected the study results. Finally, whether the population included represents a true high-risk population is questionable. Some of the prespecified high-risk features necessary to enter the study was relatively light, such as presence of diabetes mellitus or body mass index > 30 kg/m² compared to other criteria such as bifurcation stenting or left main stenting.

Currently, when treating patients with stable ischemic heart disease with higher risk anatomy, some operators may use ticagrelor over clopidogrel by extrapolating the study results from the ACS population. However, the results from the current study do not support the uniform use of ticagrelor in stable patients and suggests that the use of clopidogrel continues to be the standard of care. This is especially relevant considering the cost difference for the 2 agents studied. Whether there is a subgroup that benefits from ticagrelor use, such as patients with unprotected left main stenting or bifurcation stenting with 2 stent strategies, requires further investigation.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI, ticagrelor did not lower composite of periprocedural myocardial infarction and myocardial injury at 48 hours. Clopidogrel continues to be a first line treatment after elective PCI.

Study Overview

Objective: To assess whether ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel in reducing periprocedural myocardial necrosis in stable coronary patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Design: Multicenter, open-label, and prospective randomized control trial. Setting and participants: A total of 1910 patients with indication for PCI and at least 1 high risk characteristic were randomized to either ticagrelor or clopidogrel.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the composite of PCI-related type 4a or 4b myocardial infarction or major myocardial injury. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, evaluated within 48 hours of PCI.

Main results: At 48 hours, the primary outcome was observed in 334 of 941 patients (35%) in the ticagrelor group and 341 of 942 patients (36%) in the clopidogrel group (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.17; P = .75). The primary safety outcome did not differ between groups. Minor bleeding events at 30 days were more frequently observed with ticagrelor (11%) than clopidogrel (8%) (1.54; 95% CI 1.12-2.11; P = .007).

Conclusion: Among patients undergoing elective PCI, ticagrelor was not superior to clopidogrel in reducing periprocedural myocardial necrosis. Ticagrelor did not cause increase in major bleeding compared to clopidogrel but did increase the rate of minor bleeding at 30 days.

Commentary

Standard treatment after PCI includes dual antiplatelet therapy combining adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor antagonist and aspirin. The newer generation thienopyridine prasugrel and the reversible direct acting oral antagonist of the ADP receptor ticagrelor, provides consistent and greater antiplatelet effect compared to clopidogrel, and are superior in reducing ischemic events when compared to clopidogrel in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).^1,2 Therefore, current guidelines recommend ticagrelor and prasugrel in preference to clopidogrel in patients presenting with ACS.^3,4 However, whether these findings of improved outcomes with newer agents compared to clopidogrel extends to patients with stable ischemic heart disease presenting for elective PCI is unknown.

In this context, Silvain et al investigated this clinical question and compared ticagrelor and clopidogrel by performing a well-designed multicenter randomized control trial in patients presenting with elective PCI. At 48 hours and at 30 days the composite of PCI-related type 4 myocardial infarction or major myocardial injury defined by the third universal definition⁵ was similar between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups. Although the incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the 2 groups, minor bleeding at 30 days was higher in the ticagrelor group (11%) than clopidogrel (8%) (1.54; 95% CI, 1.12-2.11, P = .007).

The strengths of this current study include the randomized design and the large number of patients enrolled with adequate power to evaluate for superiority of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel. This was a multicenter trial in Europe with 49 participating centers from France and Czech, and the interventional technique used by the operators reflects contemporary technique with 95% use of radial or ulnar access.

There are a few important points to consider in this study. First, the primary outcome was biomarker assessed myocardial necrosis and myocardial injury, and the study was not powered to assess the hard outcomes such as death and myocardial infarction. Although there have been previous reports describing the relationship between the postprocedural myocardial necrosis with worse outcomes, the definition of myocardial necrosis post-PCI and its relationship with hard outcomes remains controversial. Second, half of the patients enrolled were on chronic clopidogrel therapy which suggests that patients with inadequate platelet inhibition with clopidogrel may be under-represented in this cohort. Third, this was an open-label study and the knowledge of agent used could have affected the study results. Finally, whether the population included represents a true high-risk population is questionable. Some of the prespecified high-risk features necessary to enter the study was relatively light, such as presence of diabetes mellitus or body mass index > 30 kg/m² compared to other criteria such as bifurcation stenting or left main stenting.

Currently, when treating patients with stable ischemic heart disease with higher risk anatomy, some operators may use ticagrelor over clopidogrel by extrapolating the study results from the ACS population. However, the results from the current study do not support the uniform use of ticagrelor in stable patients and suggests that the use of clopidogrel continues to be the standard of care. This is especially relevant considering the cost difference for the 2 agents studied. Whether there is a subgroup that benefits from ticagrelor use, such as patients with unprotected left main stenting or bifurcation stenting with 2 stent strategies, requires further investigation.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI, ticagrelor did not lower composite of periprocedural myocardial infarction and myocardial injury at 48 hours. Clopidogrel continues to be a first line treatment after elective PCI.

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the effect of the timing of nonculprit-lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

Design. Planned substudy of an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial blinded to outcome.

Setting and participants. Among 4041 patients with STEMI who had multivessel coronary disease, randomization to nonculprit PCI versus culprit-only PCI was stratified according to intended timing of nonculprit lesion PCI. A total of 2702 patients with intended timing of nonculprit PCI during the index hospitalization and 1339 patients with intended timing of nonculprit PCI after the index hospitalization within 45 days were included.

Main outcome measures. The first co-primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or myocardial infarction (MI).

Main results. In both groups, the composite endpoint of CV death or MI was reduced with complete revascularization compared to the culprit-only strategy (index hospitalization: hazard ratio [HR], 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-1.00; after hospital discharge: HR, 0.69, 95% CI, 0.49-0.97; interaction, P = 0.62). Landmark analyses demonstrated a HR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.59-1.24) during the first 45 days and 0.69 (95% CI,0.54-0.89) from 45 days to the end of follow-up for intended nonculprit lesion PCI versus culprit-lesion-only PCI.

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, the benefit of complete revascularization over culprit-lesion-only PCI was consistent, irrespective of the investigator-determined timing of staged nonculprit lesion intervention.

Commentary

Patients presenting with STEMI often have multivessel disease^.1 Although the question of whether to revascularize the nonculprit vessel has been controversial, multiple contemporary studies have reported benefit of nonculprit-vessel revascularization compared to the culprit-only strategy.^2-5 Compared to these previous medium-sized randomized controlled trials that included ischemia-driven revascularization as a composite endpoint, the COMPETE trial was unique in that it enrolled a large number of patients and reported a benefit in hard outcomes of a composite of CV death or MI.⁶

As the previous studies point toward the benefit of complete revascularization in patients presenting with STEMI, another important question has been the optimal timing of nonculprit vessel revascularization. Operators have 3 possible options: during the index procedure as primary PCI, as a staged procedure during the index admission, or as a staged procedure as an outpatient following discharge. Timing of nonculprit PCI has been inconsistent in the previous studies. For example, in the PRAMI trial, nonculprit PCI was performed during the index procedure,² while in the CvPRIT and COMPARE ACUTE trials, the nonculprit PCI was performed during the index procedure or as a staged procedure during the same admission at the operator’s discretion.^3,5

In this context, the COMPLETE investigators report their findings of the prespecified substudy regarding the timing of staged nonculprit vessel PCI. In the COMPLETE trial, 4041 patients were stratified by intended timing of nonculprit lesion PCI (2702 patients during index hospitalization, 1339 after discharge), which was predetermined by the operator prior to the randomization. Among the patients with intended staged nonculprit PCI during index hospitalization, the incidence of the first co-primary outcome of CV death or MI was 2.7% per year in patients with complete revascularization, as compared to 3.5% per year in patients with culprit-lesion only PCI (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-1.00). Similarly, in patients with intended nonculprit PCI after the index hospitalization, the incidence of the first co-primary outcome of CV death or MI was 2.7% per year in patients randomized to complete revascularization, as compared to 3.9% per year in patients with culprit-lesion-only PCI (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97). These findings were similar for the second co-primary outcome of CV death, MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization (3.0% vs 6.6% per year for intended timing of nonculprit PCI during index admission, and 3.1% vs 5.4% per year for intended timing of nonculprit PCI after discharge, both favoring complete revascularization).

The investigators also performed a landmark analysis before and after 45 days of randomization. Within the first 45 days, CV death or MI occurred in 2.5% of the complete revascularization group and 3.0% of the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.59-1.24). On the other hand, during the interval from 45 days to the end of the study, CV death or MI occurred in 5.5% in the complete revascularization group and 7.8% in the culprit-lesion-only group (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.89).

There were a number of strengths of the COMPLETE study, as we have previously described, such as multiple patients enrolled, contemporary therapy with high use of radial access, mandated use of fractional flow reserve for 50% to 69% stenosis lesions, and low cross-over rate.⁷ In addition, the current substudy is unique and important, as it was the first study to systematically evaluate the timing of the staged PCI. In addition to their finding of consistent benefit between staged procedure before or after discharge, the results from their landmark analysis suggest that the benefit of complete revascularization accumulates over the long term rather than the short term.

The main limitation of the COMPLETE study is that it was not adequately powered to find statistical differences in each subgroup studied. In addition, since all nonculprit PCIs were staged in this study, nonculprit PCI performed during the index procedure cannot be assessed.

Nevertheless, the finding of similar benefit of complete revascularization regardless of the timing of the staged PCI has clinical implication for practicing interventional cardiologists and patients presenting with STEMI. For example, if the patient presents with hemodynamically stable STEMI on a Friday, the patient can potentially be safely discharged over the weekend and return for a staged PCI as an outpatient instead of staying extra days for an inpatient staged PCI. Whether this approach may improve the patient satisfaction and hospital resource utilization will require further study.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI, staged complete revascularization can be performed during the admission or after discharge within 45 days.

—Taishi Hirai, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the effect of the timing of nonculprit-lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

Design. Planned substudy of an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial blinded to outcome.

Setting and participants. Among 4041 patients with STEMI who had multivessel coronary disease, randomization to nonculprit PCI versus culprit-only PCI was stratified according to intended timing of nonculprit lesion PCI. A total of 2702 patients with intended timing of nonculprit PCI during the index hospitalization and 1339 patients with intended timing of nonculprit PCI after the index hospitalization within 45 days were included.

Main outcome measures. The first co-primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or myocardial infarction (MI).

Main results. In both groups, the composite endpoint of CV death or MI was reduced with complete revascularization compared to the culprit-only strategy (index hospitalization: hazard ratio [HR], 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-1.00; after hospital discharge: HR, 0.69, 95% CI, 0.49-0.97; interaction, P = 0.62). Landmark analyses demonstrated a HR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.59-1.24) during the first 45 days and 0.69 (95% CI,0.54-0.89) from 45 days to the end of follow-up for intended nonculprit lesion PCI versus culprit-lesion-only PCI.

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, the benefit of complete revascularization over culprit-lesion-only PCI was consistent, irrespective of the investigator-determined timing of staged nonculprit lesion intervention.

Commentary

Patients presenting with STEMI often have multivessel disease^.1 Although the question of whether to revascularize the nonculprit vessel has been controversial, multiple contemporary studies have reported benefit of nonculprit-vessel revascularization compared to the culprit-only strategy.^2-5 Compared to these previous medium-sized randomized controlled trials that included ischemia-driven revascularization as a composite endpoint, the COMPETE trial was unique in that it enrolled a large number of patients and reported a benefit in hard outcomes of a composite of CV death or MI.⁶

As the previous studies point toward the benefit of complete revascularization in patients presenting with STEMI, another important question has been the optimal timing of nonculprit vessel revascularization. Operators have 3 possible options: during the index procedure as primary PCI, as a staged procedure during the index admission, or as a staged procedure as an outpatient following discharge. Timing of nonculprit PCI has been inconsistent in the previous studies. For example, in the PRAMI trial, nonculprit PCI was performed during the index procedure,² while in the CvPRIT and COMPARE ACUTE trials, the nonculprit PCI was performed during the index procedure or as a staged procedure during the same admission at the operator’s discretion.^3,5

In this context, the COMPLETE investigators report their findings of the prespecified substudy regarding the timing of staged nonculprit vessel PCI. In the COMPLETE trial, 4041 patients were stratified by intended timing of nonculprit lesion PCI (2702 patients during index hospitalization, 1339 after discharge), which was predetermined by the operator prior to the randomization. Among the patients with intended staged nonculprit PCI during index hospitalization, the incidence of the first co-primary outcome of CV death or MI was 2.7% per year in patients with complete revascularization, as compared to 3.5% per year in patients with culprit-lesion only PCI (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-1.00). Similarly, in patients with intended nonculprit PCI after the index hospitalization, the incidence of the first co-primary outcome of CV death or MI was 2.7% per year in patients randomized to complete revascularization, as compared to 3.9% per year in patients with culprit-lesion-only PCI (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97). These findings were similar for the second co-primary outcome of CV death, MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization (3.0% vs 6.6% per year for intended timing of nonculprit PCI during index admission, and 3.1% vs 5.4% per year for intended timing of nonculprit PCI after discharge, both favoring complete revascularization).

The investigators also performed a landmark analysis before and after 45 days of randomization. Within the first 45 days, CV death or MI occurred in 2.5% of the complete revascularization group and 3.0% of the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.59-1.24). On the other hand, during the interval from 45 days to the end of the study, CV death or MI occurred in 5.5% in the complete revascularization group and 7.8% in the culprit-lesion-only group (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.89).

There were a number of strengths of the COMPLETE study, as we have previously described, such as multiple patients enrolled, contemporary therapy with high use of radial access, mandated use of fractional flow reserve for 50% to 69% stenosis lesions, and low cross-over rate.⁷ In addition, the current substudy is unique and important, as it was the first study to systematically evaluate the timing of the staged PCI. In addition to their finding of consistent benefit between staged procedure before or after discharge, the results from their landmark analysis suggest that the benefit of complete revascularization accumulates over the long term rather than the short term.

The main limitation of the COMPLETE study is that it was not adequately powered to find statistical differences in each subgroup studied. In addition, since all nonculprit PCIs were staged in this study, nonculprit PCI performed during the index procedure cannot be assessed.

Nevertheless, the finding of similar benefit of complete revascularization regardless of the timing of the staged PCI has clinical implication for practicing interventional cardiologists and patients presenting with STEMI. For example, if the patient presents with hemodynamically stable STEMI on a Friday, the patient can potentially be safely discharged over the weekend and return for a staged PCI as an outpatient instead of staying extra days for an inpatient staged PCI. Whether this approach may improve the patient satisfaction and hospital resource utilization will require further study.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI, staged complete revascularization can be performed during the admission or after discharge within 45 days.

—Taishi Hirai, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the effect of the timing of nonculprit-lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

Design. Planned substudy of an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial blinded to outcome.

Setting and participants. Among 4041 patients with STEMI who had multivessel coronary disease, randomization to nonculprit PCI versus culprit-only PCI was stratified according to intended timing of nonculprit lesion PCI. A total of 2702 patients with intended timing of nonculprit PCI during the index hospitalization and 1339 patients with intended timing of nonculprit PCI after the index hospitalization within 45 days were included.

Main outcome measures. The first co-primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or myocardial infarction (MI).

Main results. In both groups, the composite endpoint of CV death or MI was reduced with complete revascularization compared to the culprit-only strategy (index hospitalization: hazard ratio [HR], 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-1.00; after hospital discharge: HR, 0.69, 95% CI, 0.49-0.97; interaction, P = 0.62). Landmark analyses demonstrated a HR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.59-1.24) during the first 45 days and 0.69 (95% CI,0.54-0.89) from 45 days to the end of follow-up for intended nonculprit lesion PCI versus culprit-lesion-only PCI.

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, the benefit of complete revascularization over culprit-lesion-only PCI was consistent, irrespective of the investigator-determined timing of staged nonculprit lesion intervention.

Commentary

Patients presenting with STEMI often have multivessel disease^.1 Although the question of whether to revascularize the nonculprit vessel has been controversial, multiple contemporary studies have reported benefit of nonculprit-vessel revascularization compared to the culprit-only strategy.^2-5 Compared to these previous medium-sized randomized controlled trials that included ischemia-driven revascularization as a composite endpoint, the COMPETE trial was unique in that it enrolled a large number of patients and reported a benefit in hard outcomes of a composite of CV death or MI.⁶

As the previous studies point toward the benefit of complete revascularization in patients presenting with STEMI, another important question has been the optimal timing of nonculprit vessel revascularization. Operators have 3 possible options: during the index procedure as primary PCI, as a staged procedure during the index admission, or as a staged procedure as an outpatient following discharge. Timing of nonculprit PCI has been inconsistent in the previous studies. For example, in the PRAMI trial, nonculprit PCI was performed during the index procedure,² while in the CvPRIT and COMPARE ACUTE trials, the nonculprit PCI was performed during the index procedure or as a staged procedure during the same admission at the operator’s discretion.^3,5

In this context, the COMPLETE investigators report their findings of the prespecified substudy regarding the timing of staged nonculprit vessel PCI. In the COMPLETE trial, 4041 patients were stratified by intended timing of nonculprit lesion PCI (2702 patients during index hospitalization, 1339 after discharge), which was predetermined by the operator prior to the randomization. Among the patients with intended staged nonculprit PCI during index hospitalization, the incidence of the first co-primary outcome of CV death or MI was 2.7% per year in patients with complete revascularization, as compared to 3.5% per year in patients with culprit-lesion only PCI (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-1.00). Similarly, in patients with intended nonculprit PCI after the index hospitalization, the incidence of the first co-primary outcome of CV death or MI was 2.7% per year in patients randomized to complete revascularization, as compared to 3.9% per year in patients with culprit-lesion-only PCI (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97). These findings were similar for the second co-primary outcome of CV death, MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization (3.0% vs 6.6% per year for intended timing of nonculprit PCI during index admission, and 3.1% vs 5.4% per year for intended timing of nonculprit PCI after discharge, both favoring complete revascularization).

The investigators also performed a landmark analysis before and after 45 days of randomization. Within the first 45 days, CV death or MI occurred in 2.5% of the complete revascularization group and 3.0% of the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.59-1.24). On the other hand, during the interval from 45 days to the end of the study, CV death or MI occurred in 5.5% in the complete revascularization group and 7.8% in the culprit-lesion-only group (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.89).

There were a number of strengths of the COMPLETE study, as we have previously described, such as multiple patients enrolled, contemporary therapy with high use of radial access, mandated use of fractional flow reserve for 50% to 69% stenosis lesions, and low cross-over rate.⁷ In addition, the current substudy is unique and important, as it was the first study to systematically evaluate the timing of the staged PCI. In addition to their finding of consistent benefit between staged procedure before or after discharge, the results from their landmark analysis suggest that the benefit of complete revascularization accumulates over the long term rather than the short term.

The main limitation of the COMPLETE study is that it was not adequately powered to find statistical differences in each subgroup studied. In addition, since all nonculprit PCIs were staged in this study, nonculprit PCI performed during the index procedure cannot be assessed.

Nevertheless, the finding of similar benefit of complete revascularization regardless of the timing of the staged PCI has clinical implication for practicing interventional cardiologists and patients presenting with STEMI. For example, if the patient presents with hemodynamically stable STEMI on a Friday, the patient can potentially be safely discharged over the weekend and return for a staged PCI as an outpatient instead of staying extra days for an inpatient staged PCI. Whether this approach may improve the patient satisfaction and hospital resource utilization will require further study.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI, staged complete revascularization can be performed during the admission or after discharge within 45 days.

—Taishi Hirai, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the effects of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting and participants. Adult patients with symptomatic heart failure with an ejection fraction of 40% or less and elevated heart failure biomarkers who were already on appropriate guideline-directed therapies were eligible for the study.

Intervention. A total of 4744 patients were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. Randomization was stratified by the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the composite of a first episode of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or urgent intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death.

Main results. Median follow-up was 18.2 months; during this time, the primary outcome occurred in 16.3% (386 of 2373) of patients in the dapagliflozin group and in 21.2% (502 of 2371) of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). In the dapagliflozin group, 237 patients (10.0%) experienced a first worsening heart failure event, as compared with 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83). The dapagliflozin group hadlower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (9.6% vs 11.5%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98) and from any causes (11.6% vs 13.9%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97), compared to the placebo group. Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes.

Conclusion. Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.

Inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) are a novel class of diabetic medication that decrease renal glucose reabsorption, thereby increasing urinary glucose excretion. In several large clinical trials of these medications for patients with diabetes, which were designed to meet the regulatory requirements for cardiovascular safety in novel diabetic agents, investigators unexpectedly found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events, driven by a reduction in heart failure hospitalizations. The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, the first of these trials, showed significantly lower risks of both death from any cause and hospitalization for heart failure in patients treated with empagliflozin.¹ This improvement in cardiovascular outcomes was subsequently confirmed as a class effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors in the CANVAS Program (canagliflozin) and DECLARE TIMI 58 (dapagliflozin) trials.^2,3

While these trials were designed for patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors for it, most patients did not have heart failure at baseline. Accordingly, despite a signal toward benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure, the trials were not powered to test the hypothesis that SGLT-2 inhibitors benefit patients with heart failure, regardless of diabetes status. Therefore, McMurray et al designed the DAPA-HF trial to investigate whether SGLT-2 inhibitors can improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, with or without diabetes. The trial included 4744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, who were randomly assigned to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo, atop guideline-directed heart failure therapy, with randomization stratified by presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. Investigators found that the composite primary outcome, a first episode of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death, occurred less frequently in patients in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (16.3% vs 21.2%; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). Individual components of the primary outcome and death from any cause were all significantly lower, and heart failure–related quality of life was significantly improved in the dapagliflozin group compared to placebo.

DAPA-HF was the first randomized study to investigate the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors on patients with heart failure regardless of the presence of diabetes. In addition to the reduction in the above-mentioned primary and secondary endpoints, the study yielded other important findings worth noting. First, the consistent benefit of dapagliflozin on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without diabetes suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dapagliflozin is independent of its glucose-lowering effect. Prior studies have proposed alternative mechanisms, such as diuretic function and related hemodynamic actions, effects on myocardial metabolism, ion transporters, fibrosis, adipokines, vascular function, and the preservation of renal function. Future studies are needed to fully understand the likely pleiotropic effects of this class of medication on patients with heart failure. Second, there was no difference in the safety endpoints between the groups, including renal adverse events and major hypoglycemia, implying dapagliflozin is as safe as placebo.

There are a few limitations of this trial. First, as the authors point out, the study included mostly white males—less than 5% of participants were African Americans—and the finding may not be generalizable to all patient populations. Second, although all patients were already treated with guideline-directed heart failure therapy, only 10% of patients were on sacubitril–valsartan, which is more effective than renin–angiotensin system blockade alone at reducing the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Also, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers were used in only 70% of the population. Finally, since the doses were not provided, whether patients were on the maximal tolerated dose of heart failure therapy prior to enrollment is unclear.

Based on the results of the DAPA-HF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved dapagliflozin for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on May 5, 2020. This is the first diabetic drug approved for the treatment of heart failure.

Applications for Clinical Practice

SGLT-2 inhibitors represent a fourth class of medication that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should be initiated on, in addition to beta blocker, ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor blocker. SGLT-2 inhibitors may be especially applicable in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and relative hypotension, as these agents are not associated with a significant blood-pressure-lowering effect, which can often limit our ability to initiate or uptitrate the other main 3 classes of guideline-directed medical therapy.

—Rie Hirai, MD, Fukui Kosei Hospital, Fukui, Japan
—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, Columbia, MO
—Timothy Fendler, MD, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the effects of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting and participants. Adult patients with symptomatic heart failure with an ejection fraction of 40% or less and elevated heart failure biomarkers who were already on appropriate guideline-directed therapies were eligible for the study.

Intervention. A total of 4744 patients were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. Randomization was stratified by the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the composite of a first episode of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or urgent intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death.

Main results. Median follow-up was 18.2 months; during this time, the primary outcome occurred in 16.3% (386 of 2373) of patients in the dapagliflozin group and in 21.2% (502 of 2371) of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). In the dapagliflozin group, 237 patients (10.0%) experienced a first worsening heart failure event, as compared with 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83). The dapagliflozin group hadlower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (9.6% vs 11.5%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98) and from any causes (11.6% vs 13.9%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97), compared to the placebo group. Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes.

Conclusion. Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.

Inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) are a novel class of diabetic medication that decrease renal glucose reabsorption, thereby increasing urinary glucose excretion. In several large clinical trials of these medications for patients with diabetes, which were designed to meet the regulatory requirements for cardiovascular safety in novel diabetic agents, investigators unexpectedly found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events, driven by a reduction in heart failure hospitalizations. The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, the first of these trials, showed significantly lower risks of both death from any cause and hospitalization for heart failure in patients treated with empagliflozin.¹ This improvement in cardiovascular outcomes was subsequently confirmed as a class effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors in the CANVAS Program (canagliflozin) and DECLARE TIMI 58 (dapagliflozin) trials.^2,3

While these trials were designed for patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors for it, most patients did not have heart failure at baseline. Accordingly, despite a signal toward benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure, the trials were not powered to test the hypothesis that SGLT-2 inhibitors benefit patients with heart failure, regardless of diabetes status. Therefore, McMurray et al designed the DAPA-HF trial to investigate whether SGLT-2 inhibitors can improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, with or without diabetes. The trial included 4744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, who were randomly assigned to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo, atop guideline-directed heart failure therapy, with randomization stratified by presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. Investigators found that the composite primary outcome, a first episode of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death, occurred less frequently in patients in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (16.3% vs 21.2%; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). Individual components of the primary outcome and death from any cause were all significantly lower, and heart failure–related quality of life was significantly improved in the dapagliflozin group compared to placebo.

DAPA-HF was the first randomized study to investigate the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors on patients with heart failure regardless of the presence of diabetes. In addition to the reduction in the above-mentioned primary and secondary endpoints, the study yielded other important findings worth noting. First, the consistent benefit of dapagliflozin on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without diabetes suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dapagliflozin is independent of its glucose-lowering effect. Prior studies have proposed alternative mechanisms, such as diuretic function and related hemodynamic actions, effects on myocardial metabolism, ion transporters, fibrosis, adipokines, vascular function, and the preservation of renal function. Future studies are needed to fully understand the likely pleiotropic effects of this class of medication on patients with heart failure. Second, there was no difference in the safety endpoints between the groups, including renal adverse events and major hypoglycemia, implying dapagliflozin is as safe as placebo.

There are a few limitations of this trial. First, as the authors point out, the study included mostly white males—less than 5% of participants were African Americans—and the finding may not be generalizable to all patient populations. Second, although all patients were already treated with guideline-directed heart failure therapy, only 10% of patients were on sacubitril–valsartan, which is more effective than renin–angiotensin system blockade alone at reducing the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Also, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers were used in only 70% of the population. Finally, since the doses were not provided, whether patients were on the maximal tolerated dose of heart failure therapy prior to enrollment is unclear.

Based on the results of the DAPA-HF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved dapagliflozin for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on May 5, 2020. This is the first diabetic drug approved for the treatment of heart failure.

Applications for Clinical Practice

SGLT-2 inhibitors represent a fourth class of medication that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should be initiated on, in addition to beta blocker, ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor blocker. SGLT-2 inhibitors may be especially applicable in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and relative hypotension, as these agents are not associated with a significant blood-pressure-lowering effect, which can often limit our ability to initiate or uptitrate the other main 3 classes of guideline-directed medical therapy.

—Rie Hirai, MD, Fukui Kosei Hospital, Fukui, Japan
—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, Columbia, MO
—Timothy Fendler, MD, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the effects of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting and participants. Adult patients with symptomatic heart failure with an ejection fraction of 40% or less and elevated heart failure biomarkers who were already on appropriate guideline-directed therapies were eligible for the study.

Intervention. A total of 4744 patients were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. Randomization was stratified by the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the composite of a first episode of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or urgent intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death.

Main results. Median follow-up was 18.2 months; during this time, the primary outcome occurred in 16.3% (386 of 2373) of patients in the dapagliflozin group and in 21.2% (502 of 2371) of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). In the dapagliflozin group, 237 patients (10.0%) experienced a first worsening heart failure event, as compared with 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83). The dapagliflozin group hadlower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (9.6% vs 11.5%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98) and from any causes (11.6% vs 13.9%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97), compared to the placebo group. Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes.

Conclusion. Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.

Inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) are a novel class of diabetic medication that decrease renal glucose reabsorption, thereby increasing urinary glucose excretion. In several large clinical trials of these medications for patients with diabetes, which were designed to meet the regulatory requirements for cardiovascular safety in novel diabetic agents, investigators unexpectedly found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events, driven by a reduction in heart failure hospitalizations. The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, the first of these trials, showed significantly lower risks of both death from any cause and hospitalization for heart failure in patients treated with empagliflozin.¹ This improvement in cardiovascular outcomes was subsequently confirmed as a class effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors in the CANVAS Program (canagliflozin) and DECLARE TIMI 58 (dapagliflozin) trials.^2,3

While these trials were designed for patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors for it, most patients did not have heart failure at baseline. Accordingly, despite a signal toward benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure, the trials were not powered to test the hypothesis that SGLT-2 inhibitors benefit patients with heart failure, regardless of diabetes status. Therefore, McMurray et al designed the DAPA-HF trial to investigate whether SGLT-2 inhibitors can improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, with or without diabetes. The trial included 4744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, who were randomly assigned to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo, atop guideline-directed heart failure therapy, with randomization stratified by presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. Investigators found that the composite primary outcome, a first episode of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death, occurred less frequently in patients in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (16.3% vs 21.2%; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). Individual components of the primary outcome and death from any cause were all significantly lower, and heart failure–related quality of life was significantly improved in the dapagliflozin group compared to placebo.

DAPA-HF was the first randomized study to investigate the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors on patients with heart failure regardless of the presence of diabetes. In addition to the reduction in the above-mentioned primary and secondary endpoints, the study yielded other important findings worth noting. First, the consistent benefit of dapagliflozin on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without diabetes suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dapagliflozin is independent of its glucose-lowering effect. Prior studies have proposed alternative mechanisms, such as diuretic function and related hemodynamic actions, effects on myocardial metabolism, ion transporters, fibrosis, adipokines, vascular function, and the preservation of renal function. Future studies are needed to fully understand the likely pleiotropic effects of this class of medication on patients with heart failure. Second, there was no difference in the safety endpoints between the groups, including renal adverse events and major hypoglycemia, implying dapagliflozin is as safe as placebo.

There are a few limitations of this trial. First, as the authors point out, the study included mostly white males—less than 5% of participants were African Americans—and the finding may not be generalizable to all patient populations. Second, although all patients were already treated with guideline-directed heart failure therapy, only 10% of patients were on sacubitril–valsartan, which is more effective than renin–angiotensin system blockade alone at reducing the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Also, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers were used in only 70% of the population. Finally, since the doses were not provided, whether patients were on the maximal tolerated dose of heart failure therapy prior to enrollment is unclear.

Based on the results of the DAPA-HF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved dapagliflozin for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on May 5, 2020. This is the first diabetic drug approved for the treatment of heart failure.

Applications for Clinical Practice

SGLT-2 inhibitors represent a fourth class of medication that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should be initiated on, in addition to beta blocker, ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor blocker. SGLT-2 inhibitors may be especially applicable in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and relative hypotension, as these agents are not associated with a significant blood-pressure-lowering effect, which can often limit our ability to initiate or uptitrate the other main 3 classes of guideline-directed medical therapy.

—Rie Hirai, MD, Fukui Kosei Hospital, Fukui, Japan
—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, Columbia, MO
—Timothy Fendler, MD, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the timing of surgical intervention in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Design. Open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled study.

Setting and participants. A total of 145 asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to early surgery or conservative care.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was a composite of operative mortality or death from a cardiovascular cause during follow-up. The major secondary endpoint was death from any cause during follow-up.

Main results. The primary endpoint occurred in 1 of 73 patients (1%) in the early surgery group and 11 of 72 patients (15%) in the conservative care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.67, P = 0.003). The secondary endpoint occurred in 7% of patients in the early surgery group and 21% of patients in the conservative care group (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.90).

Conclusion. Among asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis, the incidence of the composite of operative mortality or death from cardiovascular causes during follow-up was significantly lower among those who underwent early valve replacement surgery compared to those who received conservative care.

Commentary

Aortic stenosis is a progressive disease that can lead to angina, heart failure, and death.¹A higher mortality rate is reported in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, as compared to patients with asymptomatic disease, and current guidelines require symptoms to be present in order to proceed with aortic valve replacement.² Management of asymptomatic patients is often determined by the treating physician, with treatment decisions based on multiple factors, such as left ventricular function, stress test results, and the local level of expertise for surgery.²

In this context, the RECOVERY investigators report the findings of their well-designed randomized controlled study assessing patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, which was defined as aortic valve area ≤ 0.75 cm² and either transvalvular velocity > 4.5 m/s or a mean gradient ≥ 50 mm Hg. Compared to patients who received conservative care, patients who underwent early valve surgery had a significantly lower rate of a composite of operative mortality or death from any cardiovascular causes during follow-up. Notably, the number needed to treat to prevent 1 death from cardiovascular causes within 4 years was 20.

The strengths of this trial include complete long-term follow-up (> 4 years) and low cross-over rates. Furthermore, as the study targeted a previously understudied population, there were a number of interesting observations, in addition to the primary endpoint. First, the risk of sudden death was high in patients who received conservative care, 4% at 4 years and 14% at 8 years, a finding contrary to the common belief that asymptomatic patients are at lower risk of sudden cardiac death. Second, 74% of patients assigned to initial conservative care required aortic valve replacement during the follow-up period. Furthermore, when the patients assigned to conservative care required surgery, it was often performed emergently (17%), which could have contributed to the higher mortality in this group of patients. Finally, hospitalization for heart failure was more common in patients randomized to conservative care compared to patients with early surgery. These findings will help physicians conduct detailed, informed discussions with their patients regarding the risks/benefits of early surgery versus conservative management.

There are a few limitations of the RECOVERY trial to consider. First, this study investigated the effect of surgical aortic valve replacement; whether its findings can be extended to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires further investigation. Patients who were enrolled in this study were younger and had fewer comorbidities than typical patients referred for TAVR. Second, all patients included in this study had the most severe form of aortic stenosis (valve area ≤ 0.75 cm² with either a peak velocity of ≥ 4.5 m/s or mean gradient ≥ 50 mm Hg). Finally, the study was performed in highly experienced centers, as evidenced by a very low (0%) mortality rate after aortic valve replacement. Therefore, the finding may not be applicable to centers that have less experience with aortic valve replacement surgery.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The findings of the RECOVERY trial strongly suggest a mortality benefit of early surgery compared to conservative management in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Early surgery should be favored over conservative management in this patient population.

–Taishi Hirai, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the timing of surgical intervention in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Design. Open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled study.

Setting and participants. A total of 145 asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to early surgery or conservative care.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was a composite of operative mortality or death from a cardiovascular cause during follow-up. The major secondary endpoint was death from any cause during follow-up.

Main results. The primary endpoint occurred in 1 of 73 patients (1%) in the early surgery group and 11 of 72 patients (15%) in the conservative care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.67, P = 0.003). The secondary endpoint occurred in 7% of patients in the early surgery group and 21% of patients in the conservative care group (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.90).

Conclusion. Among asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis, the incidence of the composite of operative mortality or death from cardiovascular causes during follow-up was significantly lower among those who underwent early valve replacement surgery compared to those who received conservative care.

Commentary

Aortic stenosis is a progressive disease that can lead to angina, heart failure, and death.¹A higher mortality rate is reported in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, as compared to patients with asymptomatic disease, and current guidelines require symptoms to be present in order to proceed with aortic valve replacement.² Management of asymptomatic patients is often determined by the treating physician, with treatment decisions based on multiple factors, such as left ventricular function, stress test results, and the local level of expertise for surgery.²

In this context, the RECOVERY investigators report the findings of their well-designed randomized controlled study assessing patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, which was defined as aortic valve area ≤ 0.75 cm² and either transvalvular velocity > 4.5 m/s or a mean gradient ≥ 50 mm Hg. Compared to patients who received conservative care, patients who underwent early valve surgery had a significantly lower rate of a composite of operative mortality or death from any cardiovascular causes during follow-up. Notably, the number needed to treat to prevent 1 death from cardiovascular causes within 4 years was 20.

The strengths of this trial include complete long-term follow-up (> 4 years) and low cross-over rates. Furthermore, as the study targeted a previously understudied population, there were a number of interesting observations, in addition to the primary endpoint. First, the risk of sudden death was high in patients who received conservative care, 4% at 4 years and 14% at 8 years, a finding contrary to the common belief that asymptomatic patients are at lower risk of sudden cardiac death. Second, 74% of patients assigned to initial conservative care required aortic valve replacement during the follow-up period. Furthermore, when the patients assigned to conservative care required surgery, it was often performed emergently (17%), which could have contributed to the higher mortality in this group of patients. Finally, hospitalization for heart failure was more common in patients randomized to conservative care compared to patients with early surgery. These findings will help physicians conduct detailed, informed discussions with their patients regarding the risks/benefits of early surgery versus conservative management.

There are a few limitations of the RECOVERY trial to consider. First, this study investigated the effect of surgical aortic valve replacement; whether its findings can be extended to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires further investigation. Patients who were enrolled in this study were younger and had fewer comorbidities than typical patients referred for TAVR. Second, all patients included in this study had the most severe form of aortic stenosis (valve area ≤ 0.75 cm² with either a peak velocity of ≥ 4.5 m/s or mean gradient ≥ 50 mm Hg). Finally, the study was performed in highly experienced centers, as evidenced by a very low (0%) mortality rate after aortic valve replacement. Therefore, the finding may not be applicable to centers that have less experience with aortic valve replacement surgery.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The findings of the RECOVERY trial strongly suggest a mortality benefit of early surgery compared to conservative management in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Early surgery should be favored over conservative management in this patient population.

–Taishi Hirai, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the timing of surgical intervention in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Design. Open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled study.

Setting and participants. A total of 145 asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to early surgery or conservative care.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was a composite of operative mortality or death from a cardiovascular cause during follow-up. The major secondary endpoint was death from any cause during follow-up.

Main results. The primary endpoint occurred in 1 of 73 patients (1%) in the early surgery group and 11 of 72 patients (15%) in the conservative care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.67, P = 0.003). The secondary endpoint occurred in 7% of patients in the early surgery group and 21% of patients in the conservative care group (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.90).

Conclusion. Among asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis, the incidence of the composite of operative mortality or death from cardiovascular causes during follow-up was significantly lower among those who underwent early valve replacement surgery compared to those who received conservative care.

Commentary

Aortic stenosis is a progressive disease that can lead to angina, heart failure, and death.¹A higher mortality rate is reported in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, as compared to patients with asymptomatic disease, and current guidelines require symptoms to be present in order to proceed with aortic valve replacement.² Management of asymptomatic patients is often determined by the treating physician, with treatment decisions based on multiple factors, such as left ventricular function, stress test results, and the local level of expertise for surgery.²

In this context, the RECOVERY investigators report the findings of their well-designed randomized controlled study assessing patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, which was defined as aortic valve area ≤ 0.75 cm² and either transvalvular velocity > 4.5 m/s or a mean gradient ≥ 50 mm Hg. Compared to patients who received conservative care, patients who underwent early valve surgery had a significantly lower rate of a composite of operative mortality or death from any cardiovascular causes during follow-up. Notably, the number needed to treat to prevent 1 death from cardiovascular causes within 4 years was 20.

The strengths of this trial include complete long-term follow-up (> 4 years) and low cross-over rates. Furthermore, as the study targeted a previously understudied population, there were a number of interesting observations, in addition to the primary endpoint. First, the risk of sudden death was high in patients who received conservative care, 4% at 4 years and 14% at 8 years, a finding contrary to the common belief that asymptomatic patients are at lower risk of sudden cardiac death. Second, 74% of patients assigned to initial conservative care required aortic valve replacement during the follow-up period. Furthermore, when the patients assigned to conservative care required surgery, it was often performed emergently (17%), which could have contributed to the higher mortality in this group of patients. Finally, hospitalization for heart failure was more common in patients randomized to conservative care compared to patients with early surgery. These findings will help physicians conduct detailed, informed discussions with their patients regarding the risks/benefits of early surgery versus conservative management.

There are a few limitations of the RECOVERY trial to consider. First, this study investigated the effect of surgical aortic valve replacement; whether its findings can be extended to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires further investigation. Patients who were enrolled in this study were younger and had fewer comorbidities than typical patients referred for TAVR. Second, all patients included in this study had the most severe form of aortic stenosis (valve area ≤ 0.75 cm² with either a peak velocity of ≥ 4.5 m/s or mean gradient ≥ 50 mm Hg). Finally, the study was performed in highly experienced centers, as evidenced by a very low (0%) mortality rate after aortic valve replacement. Therefore, the finding may not be applicable to centers that have less experience with aortic valve replacement surgery.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The findings of the RECOVERY trial strongly suggest a mortality benefit of early surgery compared to conservative management in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Early surgery should be favored over conservative management in this patient population.

–Taishi Hirai, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To determine whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of a nonculprit lesion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction.

Design. International, multicenter, randomized controlled trial blinded to outcome.

Setting and participants. Patients with STEMI who had multivessel coronary disease and had undergone successful PCI to the culprit lesion.

Intervention. A total of 4041 patients were randomly assigned to either PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or optimal medical therapy without further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to intended timing of nonculprit lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization).

Main outcome measures. The first co-primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (MI). The second co-primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, MI or ischemia-driven revascularization.

Main results. At a median follow-up of 3 years, the composite of cardiovascular death or MI occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the nonculprit PCI group and in 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.91; P = 0.004). The second co-primary endpoint occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the nonculprit PCI group and in 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43-0.61; P < 0.001).

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, those who underwent complete revascularization with nonculprit lesion PCI had lower rates of cardiovascular death or MI compared to patients with culprit-lesion-only revascularization.

Patients presenting with STEMI often have multivessel disease.¹ Although it is known that mortality can be reduced by early revascularization of the culprit vessel,² whether the nonculprit vessel should be revascularized at the time of presentation with STEMI remains controversial.

Recently, multiple studies have reported the benefit of nonculprit vessel revascularization in patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI. Four trials (PRAMI, CvPRIT, DANAMI-PRIMULTI, and COMPARE ACUTE) investigated this clinical question with different designs, and all reported benefit of nonculprit vessel revascularization compared to a culprit-only strategy.^3-6 However, the differences in the composite endpoints were mainly driven by the softer endpoints used in these trials, such as refractory angina and ischemia-driven revascularization, and none of these previous trials had adequate power to evaluate differences in hard outcomes, such as death or MI.

In this context, Mehta et al investigated whether achieving complete revascularization by performing PCI on nonculprit vessels would improve the composite of cardiovascular death or MI compared to the culprit-only strategy by conducting a well-designed randomized controlled study. At median follow-up of 3 years, patients who underwent nonculprit vessel PCI had a lower incidence of death or MI compared to those who received the culprit-only strategy (7.8% versus 10.5%). The second co-primary endpoint (composite of death, MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization) also occurred significantly less frequently in the nonculprit PCI group than in the culprit-only PCI group (8.9% versus 16.7%).

The current study has a number of strengths. First, this was a multicenter, international study, and a large number of patients were enrolled (> 4000), achieving adequate power to evaluate for the composite of death and MI. Second, the treatments the patients received reflect contemporary medical therapy and interventional practice: the third-generation thienopyridine ticagrelor, high-dose statins, and ACE inhibitors were prescribed at high rates, and radial access (> 80%) and current-generation drug-eluting stents were used at high rates as well. Third, all angiograms were reviewed by the core lab to evaluate for completeness of revascularization. Fourth, the trial mandated use of fractional flow reserve to assess lesion stenosis 50% to 69% before considering revascularization, ensuring that only ischemic or very-high-grade lesions were revascularized. Fifth, the crossover rate in each group was low compared to the previous studies (4.7% into the complete revascularization group, 3.9% into the lesion-only group). Finally, this study evaluated the timing of the nonculprit PCI. Randomization to each group was stratified according to the intended timing of the nonculprit PCI during the index hospitalization or after hospital discharge (within 45 days). They found that benefit was consistent regardless of when the nonculprit PCI was performed.

Although the COMPLETE study’s design has a number of strengths, it is important to note that patients enrolled in this trial represent a lower-risk STEMI population. Patients with complex anatomy likely were not included, as evidenced by a lower SYNTAX score (mean, 16). Furthermore, no patients who presented with STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock were enrolled. In the recent CULPRIT SHOCK trial, which focused on patients who had multivessel disease, acute MI, and cardiogenic shock, patients who underwent the culprit-only strategy had a lower rate of death or renal replacement therapy, as compared to patients who underwent immediate complete revascularization.⁷ Therefore, whether the findings from the COMPLETE study can be extended to a sicker population requires further study.

In 2015, the results from the previous trials, such as PRAMI and CvPRIT, led to a focused update of US PCI guidelines.⁸ Recommendations for noninfarct-related artery PCI in hemodynamically stable patients presenting with acute MI were upgraded from class III to class IIb. The results from the COMPLETE trial will likely influence the future guidelines, with stronger recommendations toward complete revascularization in patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI, staged complete revascularization, including the nonculprit vessel, should be considered.

– Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, and John EA Blair, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL

Study Overview

Objective. To determine whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of a nonculprit lesion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction.

Design. International, multicenter, randomized controlled trial blinded to outcome.

Setting and participants. Patients with STEMI who had multivessel coronary disease and had undergone successful PCI to the culprit lesion.

Intervention. A total of 4041 patients were randomly assigned to either PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or optimal medical therapy without further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to intended timing of nonculprit lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization).

Main outcome measures. The first co-primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (MI). The second co-primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, MI or ischemia-driven revascularization.

Main results. At a median follow-up of 3 years, the composite of cardiovascular death or MI occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the nonculprit PCI group and in 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.91; P = 0.004). The second co-primary endpoint occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the nonculprit PCI group and in 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43-0.61; P < 0.001).

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, those who underwent complete revascularization with nonculprit lesion PCI had lower rates of cardiovascular death or MI compared to patients with culprit-lesion-only revascularization.

Patients presenting with STEMI often have multivessel disease.¹ Although it is known that mortality can be reduced by early revascularization of the culprit vessel,² whether the nonculprit vessel should be revascularized at the time of presentation with STEMI remains controversial.

Recently, multiple studies have reported the benefit of nonculprit vessel revascularization in patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI. Four trials (PRAMI, CvPRIT, DANAMI-PRIMULTI, and COMPARE ACUTE) investigated this clinical question with different designs, and all reported benefit of nonculprit vessel revascularization compared to a culprit-only strategy.^3-6 However, the differences in the composite endpoints were mainly driven by the softer endpoints used in these trials, such as refractory angina and ischemia-driven revascularization, and none of these previous trials had adequate power to evaluate differences in hard outcomes, such as death or MI.

In this context, Mehta et al investigated whether achieving complete revascularization by performing PCI on nonculprit vessels would improve the composite of cardiovascular death or MI compared to the culprit-only strategy by conducting a well-designed randomized controlled study. At median follow-up of 3 years, patients who underwent nonculprit vessel PCI had a lower incidence of death or MI compared to those who received the culprit-only strategy (7.8% versus 10.5%). The second co-primary endpoint (composite of death, MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization) also occurred significantly less frequently in the nonculprit PCI group than in the culprit-only PCI group (8.9% versus 16.7%).

The current study has a number of strengths. First, this was a multicenter, international study, and a large number of patients were enrolled (> 4000), achieving adequate power to evaluate for the composite of death and MI. Second, the treatments the patients received reflect contemporary medical therapy and interventional practice: the third-generation thienopyridine ticagrelor, high-dose statins, and ACE inhibitors were prescribed at high rates, and radial access (> 80%) and current-generation drug-eluting stents were used at high rates as well. Third, all angiograms were reviewed by the core lab to evaluate for completeness of revascularization. Fourth, the trial mandated use of fractional flow reserve to assess lesion stenosis 50% to 69% before considering revascularization, ensuring that only ischemic or very-high-grade lesions were revascularized. Fifth, the crossover rate in each group was low compared to the previous studies (4.7% into the complete revascularization group, 3.9% into the lesion-only group). Finally, this study evaluated the timing of the nonculprit PCI. Randomization to each group was stratified according to the intended timing of the nonculprit PCI during the index hospitalization or after hospital discharge (within 45 days). They found that benefit was consistent regardless of when the nonculprit PCI was performed.

Although the COMPLETE study’s design has a number of strengths, it is important to note that patients enrolled in this trial represent a lower-risk STEMI population. Patients with complex anatomy likely were not included, as evidenced by a lower SYNTAX score (mean, 16). Furthermore, no patients who presented with STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock were enrolled. In the recent CULPRIT SHOCK trial, which focused on patients who had multivessel disease, acute MI, and cardiogenic shock, patients who underwent the culprit-only strategy had a lower rate of death or renal replacement therapy, as compared to patients who underwent immediate complete revascularization.⁷ Therefore, whether the findings from the COMPLETE study can be extended to a sicker population requires further study.

In 2015, the results from the previous trials, such as PRAMI and CvPRIT, led to a focused update of US PCI guidelines.⁸ Recommendations for noninfarct-related artery PCI in hemodynamically stable patients presenting with acute MI were upgraded from class III to class IIb. The results from the COMPLETE trial will likely influence the future guidelines, with stronger recommendations toward complete revascularization in patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI, staged complete revascularization, including the nonculprit vessel, should be considered.

– Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, and John EA Blair, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL

Study Overview

Objective. To determine whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of a nonculprit lesion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction.

Design. International, multicenter, randomized controlled trial blinded to outcome.

Setting and participants. Patients with STEMI who had multivessel coronary disease and had undergone successful PCI to the culprit lesion.

Intervention. A total of 4041 patients were randomly assigned to either PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or optimal medical therapy without further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to intended timing of nonculprit lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization).

Main outcome measures. The first co-primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (MI). The second co-primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, MI or ischemia-driven revascularization.

Main results. At a median follow-up of 3 years, the composite of cardiovascular death or MI occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the nonculprit PCI group and in 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.91; P = 0.004). The second co-primary endpoint occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the nonculprit PCI group and in 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43-0.61; P < 0.001).

Conclusion. Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, those who underwent complete revascularization with nonculprit lesion PCI had lower rates of cardiovascular death or MI compared to patients with culprit-lesion-only revascularization.

Patients presenting with STEMI often have multivessel disease.¹ Although it is known that mortality can be reduced by early revascularization of the culprit vessel,² whether the nonculprit vessel should be revascularized at the time of presentation with STEMI remains controversial.

Recently, multiple studies have reported the benefit of nonculprit vessel revascularization in patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI. Four trials (PRAMI, CvPRIT, DANAMI-PRIMULTI, and COMPARE ACUTE) investigated this clinical question with different designs, and all reported benefit of nonculprit vessel revascularization compared to a culprit-only strategy.^3-6 However, the differences in the composite endpoints were mainly driven by the softer endpoints used in these trials, such as refractory angina and ischemia-driven revascularization, and none of these previous trials had adequate power to evaluate differences in hard outcomes, such as death or MI.

In this context, Mehta et al investigated whether achieving complete revascularization by performing PCI on nonculprit vessels would improve the composite of cardiovascular death or MI compared to the culprit-only strategy by conducting a well-designed randomized controlled study. At median follow-up of 3 years, patients who underwent nonculprit vessel PCI had a lower incidence of death or MI compared to those who received the culprit-only strategy (7.8% versus 10.5%). The second co-primary endpoint (composite of death, MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization) also occurred significantly less frequently in the nonculprit PCI group than in the culprit-only PCI group (8.9% versus 16.7%).

The current study has a number of strengths. First, this was a multicenter, international study, and a large number of patients were enrolled (> 4000), achieving adequate power to evaluate for the composite of death and MI. Second, the treatments the patients received reflect contemporary medical therapy and interventional practice: the third-generation thienopyridine ticagrelor, high-dose statins, and ACE inhibitors were prescribed at high rates, and radial access (> 80%) and current-generation drug-eluting stents were used at high rates as well. Third, all angiograms were reviewed by the core lab to evaluate for completeness of revascularization. Fourth, the trial mandated use of fractional flow reserve to assess lesion stenosis 50% to 69% before considering revascularization, ensuring that only ischemic or very-high-grade lesions were revascularized. Fifth, the crossover rate in each group was low compared to the previous studies (4.7% into the complete revascularization group, 3.9% into the lesion-only group). Finally, this study evaluated the timing of the nonculprit PCI. Randomization to each group was stratified according to the intended timing of the nonculprit PCI during the index hospitalization or after hospital discharge (within 45 days). They found that benefit was consistent regardless of when the nonculprit PCI was performed.

Although the COMPLETE study’s design has a number of strengths, it is important to note that patients enrolled in this trial represent a lower-risk STEMI population. Patients with complex anatomy likely were not included, as evidenced by a lower SYNTAX score (mean, 16). Furthermore, no patients who presented with STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock were enrolled. In the recent CULPRIT SHOCK trial, which focused on patients who had multivessel disease, acute MI, and cardiogenic shock, patients who underwent the culprit-only strategy had a lower rate of death or renal replacement therapy, as compared to patients who underwent immediate complete revascularization.⁷ Therefore, whether the findings from the COMPLETE study can be extended to a sicker population requires further study.

In 2015, the results from the previous trials, such as PRAMI and CvPRIT, led to a focused update of US PCI guidelines.⁸ Recommendations for noninfarct-related artery PCI in hemodynamically stable patients presenting with acute MI were upgraded from class III to class IIb. The results from the COMPLETE trial will likely influence the future guidelines, with stronger recommendations toward complete revascularization in patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with hemodynamically stable STEMI, staged complete revascularization, including the nonculprit vessel, should be considered.

– Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, and John EA Blair, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL

Study Overview

Objective. To compare the benefit of apixaban with a vitamin K antagonist and compare aspirin with placebo in patients with atrial fibrillation who had acute coronary syndrome or underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and were planning to take a P2Y12 inhibitor.

Design. Multicenter, international, open-label, prospective randomized controlled trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design.

Setting and participants. 4614 patients who had an acute coronary syndrome or had undergone PCI and were planning to take a P2Y12 inhibitor.

Intervention. Patients were assigned by means of an interactive voice-response system to receive apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist and to receive aspirin or matching placebo for 6 months.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary outcomes included death or hospitalization and a composite of ischemic events.

Main results. At 6 months, major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding had occurred in 10.5% of the patients receiving apixaban, as compared to 14.7% of those receiving a vitamin K antagonist (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.81, P < 0.001 for both noninferiority and superiority), and in 16.1% of the patients receiving aspirin, as compared with 9.0% of those receiving placebo (HR 1.89; 95% CI, 1.59-2.24; P < 0.001). Patients in the apixaban group had a lower incidence of death or hospitalization than those in the vitamin K antagonist group (23.5% versus 27.4%; HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93; P = 0.002) and similar incidence of ischemic events.

Conclusion. Among patients with atrial fibrillation and recent acute coronary syndrome or PCI treated with a P2Y12 inhibitor, an antithrombotic regimen that included apixaban without aspirin resulted in less bleeding and fewer hospitalizations without significant differences in the incidence of ischemic events than the regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or both.

PCI is performed in about 20% of patients with atrial fibrillation. These patients require dual antiplatelet therapy to prevent ischemic events, combined with long-term anticoagulation to prevent stroke due to atrial fibrillation. Because the combination of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy is associated with a higher risk of bleeding, balancing the risk and benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation in this population is crucial.

Previous studies have assessed the risk and benefit associated with anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy. When warfarin plus clopidogrel (double therapy) was compared with warfarin, aspirin, and clopidogrel (triple therapy) in patients with acute coronary syndromes and stable ischemic coronary disease undergoing PCI, use of clopidogrel without aspirin (double therapy) was associated with a significant reduction in bleeding complications (19.4% versus 44.4%, HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.20; P < 0.0001) without increasing thrombotic events.¹ Recent studies have compared triple therapy with warfarin to double therapy using direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). The PIONEER AF-PCI study, which compared low-dose rivaroxaban (15 mg once daily) plus a P2Y12 inhibitor to vitamin K antagonist plus dual antiplatelet therapy, found that the rates of clinically significant bleeding were lower in the low-dose rivaroxaban group compared to the triple-therapy group with a vitamin K antagonist (16.8% versus 26.7%; HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.76; P < 0.001).² Similarly, the RE-DUAL PCI studied dabigatran and showed that the dual therapy group with dabigatran had a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events during follow-up compared to triple therapy including a vitamin K antagonist (15.4% versus 26.9%; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.63; P < 0.001).³

In this context, Lopes at al investigated the clinical question of dual therapy versus triple therapy by performing a well-designed randomized clinical trial. In this trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, the authors studied the effect of apixaban compared to vitamin K antagonist and the effect of aspirin compared to placebo. Major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 10.5% of patients receiving apixaban, as compared to 14.7% of those receiving a vitamin K antagonist (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81; P < 0.001). The incidence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was higher in patients receiving aspirin than in those receiving placebo (16.1% versus 9.0%; HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.59-2.24; P < 0.001). Patients in the apixaban group had a lower incidence of death or hospitalization than those in the vitamin K antagonist group (23.5% versus 27.4%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93; P = 0.002). The incidence of ischemic events was similar between the apixaban group and vitamin K antagonist group and between the aspirin group and placebo group.

The strengths of this current study include the large number of patients it enrolled. Taking the results from the PIONEER-AF, RE-DUAL PCI, and AUGUSTUS trials, it is clear that DOAC reduces the risk of bleeding compared to vitamin K antagonist. In addition, the AUGUSTUS trial was the first that evaluated the effect of aspirin in patients treated with DOAC and antiplatelet therapy. Aspirin was associated with increased risk of bleeding, with a similar rate of ischemic events compared to placebo.

The AUGUSTUS trial has several limitations. Although the incidence of ischemic events was similar between the apixaban group and the vitamin K antagonist group, the study was not powered to evaluate for individual ischemic outcomes. However, there was no clear evidence of an increase in harm. Since more than 90% of P2Y12 inhibitors used were clopidogrel, the safety and efficacy of combining apixaban with ticagrelor or prasugrel will require further study.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent acute coronary syndrome or PCI treated with a P2Y12 inhibitor, dual therapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor and DOAC should be favored over a regimen that includes a vitamin K antagonist and/or aspirin.

—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, and John Blair, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center

Study Overview

Objective. To compare the benefit of apixaban with a vitamin K antagonist and compare aspirin with placebo in patients with atrial fibrillation who had acute coronary syndrome or underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and were planning to take a P2Y12 inhibitor.

Design. Multicenter, international, open-label, prospective randomized controlled trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design.

Setting and participants. 4614 patients who had an acute coronary syndrome or had undergone PCI and were planning to take a P2Y12 inhibitor.

Intervention. Patients were assigned by means of an interactive voice-response system to receive apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist and to receive aspirin or matching placebo for 6 months.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary outcomes included death or hospitalization and a composite of ischemic events.

Main results. At 6 months, major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding had occurred in 10.5% of the patients receiving apixaban, as compared to 14.7% of those receiving a vitamin K antagonist (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.81, P < 0.001 for both noninferiority and superiority), and in 16.1% of the patients receiving aspirin, as compared with 9.0% of those receiving placebo (HR 1.89; 95% CI, 1.59-2.24; P < 0.001). Patients in the apixaban group had a lower incidence of death or hospitalization than those in the vitamin K antagonist group (23.5% versus 27.4%; HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93; P = 0.002) and similar incidence of ischemic events.

Conclusion. Among patients with atrial fibrillation and recent acute coronary syndrome or PCI treated with a P2Y12 inhibitor, an antithrombotic regimen that included apixaban without aspirin resulted in less bleeding and fewer hospitalizations without significant differences in the incidence of ischemic events than the regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or both.

PCI is performed in about 20% of patients with atrial fibrillation. These patients require dual antiplatelet therapy to prevent ischemic events, combined with long-term anticoagulation to prevent stroke due to atrial fibrillation. Because the combination of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy is associated with a higher risk of bleeding, balancing the risk and benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation in this population is crucial.

Previous studies have assessed the risk and benefit associated with anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy. When warfarin plus clopidogrel (double therapy) was compared with warfarin, aspirin, and clopidogrel (triple therapy) in patients with acute coronary syndromes and stable ischemic coronary disease undergoing PCI, use of clopidogrel without aspirin (double therapy) was associated with a significant reduction in bleeding complications (19.4% versus 44.4%, HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.20; P < 0.0001) without increasing thrombotic events.¹ Recent studies have compared triple therapy with warfarin to double therapy using direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). The PIONEER AF-PCI study, which compared low-dose rivaroxaban (15 mg once daily) plus a P2Y12 inhibitor to vitamin K antagonist plus dual antiplatelet therapy, found that the rates of clinically significant bleeding were lower in the low-dose rivaroxaban group compared to the triple-therapy group with a vitamin K antagonist (16.8% versus 26.7%; HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.76; P < 0.001).² Similarly, the RE-DUAL PCI studied dabigatran and showed that the dual therapy group with dabigatran had a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events during follow-up compared to triple therapy including a vitamin K antagonist (15.4% versus 26.9%; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.63; P < 0.001).³

In this context, Lopes at al investigated the clinical question of dual therapy versus triple therapy by performing a well-designed randomized clinical trial. In this trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, the authors studied the effect of apixaban compared to vitamin K antagonist and the effect of aspirin compared to placebo. Major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 10.5% of patients receiving apixaban, as compared to 14.7% of those receiving a vitamin K antagonist (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81; P < 0.001). The incidence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was higher in patients receiving aspirin than in those receiving placebo (16.1% versus 9.0%; HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.59-2.24; P < 0.001). Patients in the apixaban group had a lower incidence of death or hospitalization than those in the vitamin K antagonist group (23.5% versus 27.4%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93; P = 0.002). The incidence of ischemic events was similar between the apixaban group and vitamin K antagonist group and between the aspirin group and placebo group.

The strengths of this current study include the large number of patients it enrolled. Taking the results from the PIONEER-AF, RE-DUAL PCI, and AUGUSTUS trials, it is clear that DOAC reduces the risk of bleeding compared to vitamin K antagonist. In addition, the AUGUSTUS trial was the first that evaluated the effect of aspirin in patients treated with DOAC and antiplatelet therapy. Aspirin was associated with increased risk of bleeding, with a similar rate of ischemic events compared to placebo.

The AUGUSTUS trial has several limitations. Although the incidence of ischemic events was similar between the apixaban group and the vitamin K antagonist group, the study was not powered to evaluate for individual ischemic outcomes. However, there was no clear evidence of an increase in harm. Since more than 90% of P2Y12 inhibitors used were clopidogrel, the safety and efficacy of combining apixaban with ticagrelor or prasugrel will require further study.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent acute coronary syndrome or PCI treated with a P2Y12 inhibitor, dual therapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor and DOAC should be favored over a regimen that includes a vitamin K antagonist and/or aspirin.

—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, and John Blair, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center

Study Overview

Objective. To compare the benefit of apixaban with a vitamin K antagonist and compare aspirin with placebo in patients with atrial fibrillation who had acute coronary syndrome or underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and were planning to take a P2Y12 inhibitor.

Design. Multicenter, international, open-label, prospective randomized controlled trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design.

Setting and participants. 4614 patients who had an acute coronary syndrome or had undergone PCI and were planning to take a P2Y12 inhibitor.

Intervention. Patients were assigned by means of an interactive voice-response system to receive apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist and to receive aspirin or matching placebo for 6 months.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary outcomes included death or hospitalization and a composite of ischemic events.

Main results. At 6 months, major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding had occurred in 10.5% of the patients receiving apixaban, as compared to 14.7% of those receiving a vitamin K antagonist (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.81, P < 0.001 for both noninferiority and superiority), and in 16.1% of the patients receiving aspirin, as compared with 9.0% of those receiving placebo (HR 1.89; 95% CI, 1.59-2.24; P < 0.001). Patients in the apixaban group had a lower incidence of death or hospitalization than those in the vitamin K antagonist group (23.5% versus 27.4%; HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93; P = 0.002) and similar incidence of ischemic events.

Conclusion. Among patients with atrial fibrillation and recent acute coronary syndrome or PCI treated with a P2Y12 inhibitor, an antithrombotic regimen that included apixaban without aspirin resulted in less bleeding and fewer hospitalizations without significant differences in the incidence of ischemic events than the regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or both.

PCI is performed in about 20% of patients with atrial fibrillation. These patients require dual antiplatelet therapy to prevent ischemic events, combined with long-term anticoagulation to prevent stroke due to atrial fibrillation. Because the combination of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy is associated with a higher risk of bleeding, balancing the risk and benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation in this population is crucial.

Previous studies have assessed the risk and benefit associated with anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy. When warfarin plus clopidogrel (double therapy) was compared with warfarin, aspirin, and clopidogrel (triple therapy) in patients with acute coronary syndromes and stable ischemic coronary disease undergoing PCI, use of clopidogrel without aspirin (double therapy) was associated with a significant reduction in bleeding complications (19.4% versus 44.4%, HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.20; P < 0.0001) without increasing thrombotic events.¹ Recent studies have compared triple therapy with warfarin to double therapy using direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). The PIONEER AF-PCI study, which compared low-dose rivaroxaban (15 mg once daily) plus a P2Y12 inhibitor to vitamin K antagonist plus dual antiplatelet therapy, found that the rates of clinically significant bleeding were lower in the low-dose rivaroxaban group compared to the triple-therapy group with a vitamin K antagonist (16.8% versus 26.7%; HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.76; P < 0.001).² Similarly, the RE-DUAL PCI studied dabigatran and showed that the dual therapy group with dabigatran had a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events during follow-up compared to triple therapy including a vitamin K antagonist (15.4% versus 26.9%; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.63; P < 0.001).³

In this context, Lopes at al investigated the clinical question of dual therapy versus triple therapy by performing a well-designed randomized clinical trial. In this trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, the authors studied the effect of apixaban compared to vitamin K antagonist and the effect of aspirin compared to placebo. Major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 10.5% of patients receiving apixaban, as compared to 14.7% of those receiving a vitamin K antagonist (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81; P < 0.001). The incidence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was higher in patients receiving aspirin than in those receiving placebo (16.1% versus 9.0%; HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.59-2.24; P < 0.001). Patients in the apixaban group had a lower incidence of death or hospitalization than those in the vitamin K antagonist group (23.5% versus 27.4%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93; P = 0.002). The incidence of ischemic events was similar between the apixaban group and vitamin K antagonist group and between the aspirin group and placebo group.

The strengths of this current study include the large number of patients it enrolled. Taking the results from the PIONEER-AF, RE-DUAL PCI, and AUGUSTUS trials, it is clear that DOAC reduces the risk of bleeding compared to vitamin K antagonist. In addition, the AUGUSTUS trial was the first that evaluated the effect of aspirin in patients treated with DOAC and antiplatelet therapy. Aspirin was associated with increased risk of bleeding, with a similar rate of ischemic events compared to placebo.

The AUGUSTUS trial has several limitations. Although the incidence of ischemic events was similar between the apixaban group and the vitamin K antagonist group, the study was not powered to evaluate for individual ischemic outcomes. However, there was no clear evidence of an increase in harm. Since more than 90% of P2Y12 inhibitors used were clopidogrel, the safety and efficacy of combining apixaban with ticagrelor or prasugrel will require further study.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent acute coronary syndrome or PCI treated with a P2Y12 inhibitor, dual therapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor and DOAC should be favored over a regimen that includes a vitamin K antagonist and/or aspirin.

—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, and John Blair, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the relative merits of ticagrelor compared to prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes who will undergo invasive evaluation.

Design. Multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants. A total of 4018 patients who presented with ACS with or without ST-segment elevation.

Intervention. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either ticagrelor or prasugrel.

Main outcome measures. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. The secondary end point was bleeding.

Main results. At 1 year, a primary end point event occurred in 184 of 2012 patients (9.3%) in the ticagrelor group and 137 of 2006 patients (6.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.70; P = 0.006). In the comparison between ticagrelor and prasugrel, the individual components of the primary end point were as follows: death, 4.5% versus 3.7%; myocardial infarction, 4.8% versus 3.0%; and stroke, 1.1% versus 1.0%, respectively. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1.0% in patients assigned to prasugrel. Major bleeding was observed in 5.4% of the patients in the ticagrelor group and 4.8% in the prasugrel group (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.83-1.51, P = 0.46).

Conclusion. In patients who presented with ACS with or without ST-segment elevation, the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was significantly lower among those who received prasugrel as compared to those who received ticagrelor, and incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different.

Dual antiplatelet therapy combining an adenosine disphosphate (ADP) receptor antagonist and aspirin is standard treatment for patients presenting with ACS. The limitation of clopidogrel has been its modest antiplatelet effect, with substantial interpatient variability. The newer generation thienopyridine prasugrel and the reversible direct-acting oral antagonist of the ADP receptor ticagrelor provide consistent and greater antiplatelet effect compared to clopidogrel. It has been previously reported that these agents are superior in reducing ischemic events when compared to clopidogrel.^1,2 Therefore, current guidelines recommend ticagrelor and prasugrel in preference to clopidogrel.^3,4 However, there has been no large randomized controlled study comparing the effect of ticagrelor and prasugrel. In this context, Shupke et al investigated this clinical question by performing a well-designed multicenter randomized controlled trial in patients presenting with ACS. At 12-month follow-up, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke occurred more frequently in the ticagrelor group compared to the prasugrel group (9.3% versus 6.9%; HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.09-1.70; P < 0.01). The incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the 2 groups (5.4% versus 4.8%; P = 0.46).

The strengths of this current study include the randomized design and the large number of patients enrolled, with adequate power to evaluate for superiority. This was a multicenter trial in Europe with 23 participating centers (21 from Germany). Furthermore, the interventional technique used by the operators reflects more contemporary technique compared to the previous studies comparing each agent to clopidogrel,^1,2 with more frequent use of radial access (37%) and drug-eluting stents (90%) and reduced use of GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors (12%).

There are a few important points to consider due to the differences between the 2 agents compared in this study. First, the loading dose of ticagrelor and prasugrel was administered differently in patients presenting with ACS without ST elevation. Ticagrelor was administered as soon as possible prior to the coronary angiogram, but prasugrel was administered after the coronary anatomy was defined prior to the intervention, which is how this agent is administered in current clinical practice. Therefore, this trial was an open-label study that compared not only different medications, but different administration strategies. Second, ticagrelor and prasugrel have different side-effect profiles. The side effects unique to ticagrelor are dyspnea and bradycardia. On the other hand, a contraindication unique to prasugrel is patients with a history of transient ischemic attack or stroke due to increased risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic stroke.¹ In addition, prasugrel has increased bleeding risk in patients older than 75 years of age and those with low body weight (< 60 kg). In this study, the overall medication discontinuation rate was higher in the ticagrelor group specifically due to dyspnea, and the reduced dose of 5 mg of prasugrel was used in patients older than 75 years or with low body weight.

Since the timing of administration of ticagrelor (preloading prior to coronary angiography is recommended) is similar to that of clopidogrel, and given the theoretical benefit of reversible inhibition of the ADP receptor, ticagrelor has been used more commonly in clinical practice than prasugrel, and it has been implemented in the ACS protocol in many hospitals. In light of the results from this first head-to-head comparison utilizing more contemporary interventional techniques, these protocols may need to be adjusted in favor of prasugrel for patients presenting with ACS. However, given the difference in timing of administration and the difference in side-effect profile, operators must also tailor these agents depending on the patient profile.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with ACS, prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor, with a lower composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke at 12 months. Prasugrel should be considered as a first-line treatment for ACS.

– Taishi Hirai, MD, and Arun Kumar, MD, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the relative merits of ticagrelor compared to prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes who will undergo invasive evaluation.

Design. Multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants. A total of 4018 patients who presented with ACS with or without ST-segment elevation.

Intervention. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either ticagrelor or prasugrel.

Main outcome measures. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. The secondary end point was bleeding.

Main results. At 1 year, a primary end point event occurred in 184 of 2012 patients (9.3%) in the ticagrelor group and 137 of 2006 patients (6.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.70; P = 0.006). In the comparison between ticagrelor and prasugrel, the individual components of the primary end point were as follows: death, 4.5% versus 3.7%; myocardial infarction, 4.8% versus 3.0%; and stroke, 1.1% versus 1.0%, respectively. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1.0% in patients assigned to prasugrel. Major bleeding was observed in 5.4% of the patients in the ticagrelor group and 4.8% in the prasugrel group (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.83-1.51, P = 0.46).

Conclusion. In patients who presented with ACS with or without ST-segment elevation, the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was significantly lower among those who received prasugrel as compared to those who received ticagrelor, and incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different.

Dual antiplatelet therapy combining an adenosine disphosphate (ADP) receptor antagonist and aspirin is standard treatment for patients presenting with ACS. The limitation of clopidogrel has been its modest antiplatelet effect, with substantial interpatient variability. The newer generation thienopyridine prasugrel and the reversible direct-acting oral antagonist of the ADP receptor ticagrelor provide consistent and greater antiplatelet effect compared to clopidogrel. It has been previously reported that these agents are superior in reducing ischemic events when compared to clopidogrel.^1,2 Therefore, current guidelines recommend ticagrelor and prasugrel in preference to clopidogrel.^3,4 However, there has been no large randomized controlled study comparing the effect of ticagrelor and prasugrel. In this context, Shupke et al investigated this clinical question by performing a well-designed multicenter randomized controlled trial in patients presenting with ACS. At 12-month follow-up, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke occurred more frequently in the ticagrelor group compared to the prasugrel group (9.3% versus 6.9%; HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.09-1.70; P < 0.01). The incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the 2 groups (5.4% versus 4.8%; P = 0.46).

The strengths of this current study include the randomized design and the large number of patients enrolled, with adequate power to evaluate for superiority. This was a multicenter trial in Europe with 23 participating centers (21 from Germany). Furthermore, the interventional technique used by the operators reflects more contemporary technique compared to the previous studies comparing each agent to clopidogrel,^1,2 with more frequent use of radial access (37%) and drug-eluting stents (90%) and reduced use of GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors (12%).

There are a few important points to consider due to the differences between the 2 agents compared in this study. First, the loading dose of ticagrelor and prasugrel was administered differently in patients presenting with ACS without ST elevation. Ticagrelor was administered as soon as possible prior to the coronary angiogram, but prasugrel was administered after the coronary anatomy was defined prior to the intervention, which is how this agent is administered in current clinical practice. Therefore, this trial was an open-label study that compared not only different medications, but different administration strategies. Second, ticagrelor and prasugrel have different side-effect profiles. The side effects unique to ticagrelor are dyspnea and bradycardia. On the other hand, a contraindication unique to prasugrel is patients with a history of transient ischemic attack or stroke due to increased risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic stroke.¹ In addition, prasugrel has increased bleeding risk in patients older than 75 years of age and those with low body weight (< 60 kg). In this study, the overall medication discontinuation rate was higher in the ticagrelor group specifically due to dyspnea, and the reduced dose of 5 mg of prasugrel was used in patients older than 75 years or with low body weight.

Since the timing of administration of ticagrelor (preloading prior to coronary angiography is recommended) is similar to that of clopidogrel, and given the theoretical benefit of reversible inhibition of the ADP receptor, ticagrelor has been used more commonly in clinical practice than prasugrel, and it has been implemented in the ACS protocol in many hospitals. In light of the results from this first head-to-head comparison utilizing more contemporary interventional techniques, these protocols may need to be adjusted in favor of prasugrel for patients presenting with ACS. However, given the difference in timing of administration and the difference in side-effect profile, operators must also tailor these agents depending on the patient profile.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with ACS, prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor, with a lower composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke at 12 months. Prasugrel should be considered as a first-line treatment for ACS.

– Taishi Hirai, MD, and Arun Kumar, MD, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the relative merits of ticagrelor compared to prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes who will undergo invasive evaluation.

Design. Multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants. A total of 4018 patients who presented with ACS with or without ST-segment elevation.

Intervention. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either ticagrelor or prasugrel.

Main outcome measures. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. The secondary end point was bleeding.

Main results. At 1 year, a primary end point event occurred in 184 of 2012 patients (9.3%) in the ticagrelor group and 137 of 2006 patients (6.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.70; P = 0.006). In the comparison between ticagrelor and prasugrel, the individual components of the primary end point were as follows: death, 4.5% versus 3.7%; myocardial infarction, 4.8% versus 3.0%; and stroke, 1.1% versus 1.0%, respectively. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1.0% in patients assigned to prasugrel. Major bleeding was observed in 5.4% of the patients in the ticagrelor group and 4.8% in the prasugrel group (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.83-1.51, P = 0.46).

Conclusion. In patients who presented with ACS with or without ST-segment elevation, the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was significantly lower among those who received prasugrel as compared to those who received ticagrelor, and incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different.

Dual antiplatelet therapy combining an adenosine disphosphate (ADP) receptor antagonist and aspirin is standard treatment for patients presenting with ACS. The limitation of clopidogrel has been its modest antiplatelet effect, with substantial interpatient variability. The newer generation thienopyridine prasugrel and the reversible direct-acting oral antagonist of the ADP receptor ticagrelor provide consistent and greater antiplatelet effect compared to clopidogrel. It has been previously reported that these agents are superior in reducing ischemic events when compared to clopidogrel.^1,2 Therefore, current guidelines recommend ticagrelor and prasugrel in preference to clopidogrel.^3,4 However, there has been no large randomized controlled study comparing the effect of ticagrelor and prasugrel. In this context, Shupke et al investigated this clinical question by performing a well-designed multicenter randomized controlled trial in patients presenting with ACS. At 12-month follow-up, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke occurred more frequently in the ticagrelor group compared to the prasugrel group (9.3% versus 6.9%; HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.09-1.70; P < 0.01). The incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the 2 groups (5.4% versus 4.8%; P = 0.46).

The strengths of this current study include the randomized design and the large number of patients enrolled, with adequate power to evaluate for superiority. This was a multicenter trial in Europe with 23 participating centers (21 from Germany). Furthermore, the interventional technique used by the operators reflects more contemporary technique compared to the previous studies comparing each agent to clopidogrel,^1,2 with more frequent use of radial access (37%) and drug-eluting stents (90%) and reduced use of GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors (12%).

There are a few important points to consider due to the differences between the 2 agents compared in this study. First, the loading dose of ticagrelor and prasugrel was administered differently in patients presenting with ACS without ST elevation. Ticagrelor was administered as soon as possible prior to the coronary angiogram, but prasugrel was administered after the coronary anatomy was defined prior to the intervention, which is how this agent is administered in current clinical practice. Therefore, this trial was an open-label study that compared not only different medications, but different administration strategies. Second, ticagrelor and prasugrel have different side-effect profiles. The side effects unique to ticagrelor are dyspnea and bradycardia. On the other hand, a contraindication unique to prasugrel is patients with a history of transient ischemic attack or stroke due to increased risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic stroke.¹ In addition, prasugrel has increased bleeding risk in patients older than 75 years of age and those with low body weight (< 60 kg). In this study, the overall medication discontinuation rate was higher in the ticagrelor group specifically due to dyspnea, and the reduced dose of 5 mg of prasugrel was used in patients older than 75 years or with low body weight.

Since the timing of administration of ticagrelor (preloading prior to coronary angiography is recommended) is similar to that of clopidogrel, and given the theoretical benefit of reversible inhibition of the ADP receptor, ticagrelor has been used more commonly in clinical practice than prasugrel, and it has been implemented in the ACS protocol in many hospitals. In light of the results from this first head-to-head comparison utilizing more contemporary interventional techniques, these protocols may need to be adjusted in favor of prasugrel for patients presenting with ACS. However, given the difference in timing of administration and the difference in side-effect profile, operators must also tailor these agents depending on the patient profile.

Applications for Clinical Practice

In patients presenting with ACS, prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor, with a lower composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke at 12 months. Prasugrel should be considered as a first-line treatment for ACS.

– Taishi Hirai, MD, and Arun Kumar, MD, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO