Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has revolutionized the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), markedly improving patient outcomes. Despite technological advancements, pharmacological innovations, and refined interventional techniques, STEMI prognosis remains burdened by a persistent incidence of cardiac death and heart failure (HF), with mortality rates plateauing over the last decade. This review examines current practices in primary PCI, focusing on critical factors influencing patient outcomes. Moreover, it explores future developments, emphasizing the role of microvascular dysfunction—a critical but often under-recognized contributor to adverse outcomes, including incident HF and mortality, and has emerged as a key therapeutic frontier. Strategies aimed at preserving microvascular function, mitigating ischemia–reperfusion injury, and reducing infarct size are discussed as potential avenues for improving STEMI management. By addressing these challenges, the field can advance toward more personalized and effective interventions, potentially breaking the current deadlock in mortality rates and improving longer-term prognosis.
Background: The authors examined the association between colchicine treatment and clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Methods: They performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with coronary artery disease receiving add-on colchicine to standard treatment compared with standard treatment. They used a mixed-effects Poisson regression model with random intervention effects to estimate the pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% CI. Results: Ten RCTs were identified, including 12,819 participants followed up for a median of 6 months. Colchicine was associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (IRR 0.69; 95% CI [0.60–0.79]; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome [NNTB] = 28); MI (IRR 0.77; 95% CI [0.64–0.93]; NNTB = 95) and ischaemic stroke (IRR 0.48; 95% CI [0.30–0.76]; NNTB = 155) and with a higher risk of gastrointestinal adverse events (IRR 1.69; 95% CI [1.12–2.54]; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome [NNTH] = 10). Colchicine did not affect all-cause death (IRR 1.09; 95% CI [0.85–1.40]), or cardiovascular death (IRR 0.75; 95% CI [0.51–1.12]), while it was associated with a higher risk of non-cardiovascular death (IRR 1.45; 95% CI [1.04–2.02]; NNTH = 396). Conclusion: The meta-analysis showed that the relative and absolute beneficial treatment effects of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes outweigh the potential harm for non-cardiovascular mortality. Registration: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021248874.
23 March 2026 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
(1) Shorter-duration dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by single antiplatelet therapy has been shown to significantly reduce bleeding events while preserving anti-ischemic effects in patients undergoing conventional percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Whether this strategy is also safe and effective in complex PCI remains elusive; (2) A systematic search of randomized controlled trials comparing a short course of ticagrelor-based DAPT versus standard DAPT in patients undergoing complex PCI was performed; (3) Of 10,689 studies screened, 3 were identified for a total of 4176 participants on ticagrelor monotherapy after a short course of ticagrelor-based DAPT, and 4209 on standard DAPT. The pooled analysis revealed no difference in the outcomes of major bleeding, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis and ischemic stroke. A significant reduction in the risk of cardiovascular death (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.52; 95% CI 0.28–0.96; p = 0.04), all-cause death (IRR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49–0.86; p = 0.003), and any bleeding events (IRR 0.62; 95% CI 0.47–0.81; p < 0.001) was seen in the shorter DAPT group; (4) Among patients undergoing complex PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy after a short course of ticagrelor-based DAPT significantly reduced bleeding risk without increasing ischemic risk. More data are needed to definitively explain mortality benefits.