BACKGROUND: The RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) demonstrated that intravascular imaging–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved clinical outcome compared with angiography-guided PCI for patients with complex coronary artery lesions. This study aims to assess whether the prognostic benefit of intravascular imaging–guided procedural optimization persists in patients undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease. METHODS: Of 1639 patients enrolled in the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, 192 patients with left main coronary artery disease were selected for the current prespecified substudy. Selected patients were randomly assigned to either the intravascular imaging–guided PCI group (n=138) or the angiography-guided PCI group (n=54). The primary end point was target vessel failure defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range 1.1 to 3.0 years), intravascular imaging–guided PCI was associated with lower incidence of primary end point compared with angiography-guided PCI (6.8% versus 25.1%; hazard ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13–0.76]; P =0.010). This significant reduction in primary end point was mainly driven by a lower risk of cardiac death or spontaneous target vessel–related myocardial infarction (1.6% versus 12.7%; hazard ratio, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.03–0.82]; P =0.028). Intravascular imaging–guided PCI was independently associated with a lower risk of primary end point, even after adjusting for various clinical factors (hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.12–0.72]; P =0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Intravascular imaging–guided PCI showed clinical benefit over angiography-guided PCI for left main coronary artery disease in reducing the risk of cardiac death, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of clopidogrel vs. aspirin monotherapy on vascular function and hemostatic measurement. Background: Monotherapy with P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor vs. aspirin can be a useful alterative to optimize clinical efficacy and safety in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: We performed a randomized, open-label, two-period crossover study in stented patients receiving at least 6-month of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Thirty CAD patients with moderate-to-high ischemic risk were randomly assigned to receive either 75 mg of clopidogrel or 100 mg of aspirin daily for 4 weeks, and were crossed over to the other strategy for 4 weeks. Vascular function was evaluated with reactive hyperemia-peripheral arterial tonometry (RH-PAT) and brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV). Hemostatic profiles were measured with VerifyNow and thromboelastography (TEG). The primary endpoint was the reactive hyperemia index (RHI) during clopidogrel or aspirin monotherapy. Results: Clopidogrel vs. aspirin monotherapy was associated with better endothelial function (RHI: 2.11 ± 0.77% vs. 1.87 ± 0.72%, p = 0.045), lower platelet reactivity (130 ± 64 vs. 214 ± 50 P2Y12 reaction unit [PRU], p < 0.001) and prolonged reaction time (TEG R: 5.5 ± 1.2 vs. 5.1 ± 1.1 min, p = 0.037). In multivariate analysis, normal endothelial function (RHI ≥ 2.1) was significantly associated with clot kinetics (TEG angle ≤ 68 degree) and ‘PRU ≤ 132’. ‘PRU ≤ 132’ was achieved in 46.2% vs. 3.8% during clopidogrel administration vs. aspirin monotherapy (odds ratio 21.4, 95% confidence interval 2.7 to 170.1, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In CAD patients, clopidogrel vs. aspirin monotherapy was associated with better endothelial function, greater platelet inhibition and lower coagulation activity, suggesting pleiotropic effects of clopidogrel on endothelial function and hemostatic profiles.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for noninfarct-related artery (IRA) lesions with angiographically severe stenosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction is unclear. METHODS: Among 562 patients from the FRAME-AMI trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non-Infraction Related Artery Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) who were randomly allocated into either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions, the current study evaluated the relationship between non-IRA stenosis measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and the efficacy of FFR-guided PCI. The incidence of the primary end point (death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) was compared between FFR- and angiography-guided PCI according to non-IRA stenosis severity (QCA stenosis ≥70% or <70%). RESULTS: A total of 562 patients were assigned to FFR-guided (n=284) versus angiography-guided PCI (n=278). At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary end point occurred in 14 of 181 patients with FFR-guided PCI and 31 of 197 patients with angiography-guided PCI among patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (8.5% versus 19.2%; hazard ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.22–0.80]; P =0.008), while occurred in 4 of 103 patients with FFR-guided PCI and 9 of 81 patients with angiography-guided PCI among those with QCA stenosis <70% (3.9% versus 11.1%; P =0.315). There was no significant interaction between treatment strategy and non-IRA stenosis severity ( P for interaction=0.636). FFR-guided PCI was associated with the reduction of death and myocardial infarction in both patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (6.7% versus 15.1%; P =0.008) and those with QCA stenosis <70% (1.0% versus 9.6%; P =0.042) compared with angiography-guided PCI. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, FFR-guided PCI tended to have a lower risk of primary end point than angiography-guided PCI regardless of non-IRA stenosis severity without significant interaction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.

Kim K, et al. J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023 Jan;31:e12. https://doi.org/10.4250/jcvi.2022.0053

BACKGROUND: The Murray law–based quantitative flow ratio (μFR) is an emerging technique that requires only 1 projection of coronary angiography with similar accuracy to quantitative flow ratio (QFR). However, it has not been validated for the evaluation of noninfarct-related artery (non-IRA) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) settings. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of μFR and the safety of deferring non-IRA lesions with μFR >0.80 in the setting of AMI. METHODS: μFR and QFR were analyzed for non-IRA lesions of patients with AMI enrolled in the FRAME-AMI trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non-Infarction Related Artery Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction), consisting of fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided percutaneous coronary intervention and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention groups. The diagnostic accuracy of μFR was compared with QFR and FFR. Patients were classified by the non-IRA μFR value of 0.80 as a cutoff value. The primary outcome was a vessel-oriented composite outcome, a composite of cardiac death, non-IRA–related myocardial infarction, and non-IRA–related repeat revascularization. RESULTS: μFR and QFR analyses were feasible in 443 patients (552 lesions). μFR showed acceptable correlation with FFR (R=0.777; P <0.001), comparable C-index with QFR to predict FFR ≤0.80 (μFR versus QFR: 0.926 versus 0.961, P =0.070), and shorter total analysis time (mean, 32.7 versus 186.9 s; P 0.80 and deferred percutaneous coronary intervention had a significantly lower risk of vessel-oriented composite outcome than non-IRA with performed percutaneous coronary intervention (3.4% versus 10.5%; hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.14–0.99]; P =0.048). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multivessel AMI, μFR of non-IRA showed acceptable diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of QFR to predict FFR ≤0.80. Deferred non-IRA with μFR >0.80 showed a lower risk of vessel-oriented composite outcome than revascularized non-IRA. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.