Josep Gomez-Lara

El tratamiento óptimo de las lesiones angiográficas intermedias (diámetro de estenosis 40-69%) no culpables en pacientes con infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST (IAMCEST) está por determinar. La reserva fraccional de flujo (RFF) permite diagnosticar lesiones causantes de isquemia (RFF ≤ 0,80) que se benefician de una revascularización. No obstante, las lesiones con RFF > 0,80 y criterios de vulnerabilidad por tomografía de coherencia óptica (OCT) también se ha hipotetizado que pueden causar eventos adversos en el seguimiento. El objetivo es comparar la eficacia del tratamiento preventivo con implantación de stent más tratamiento médico óptimo de lesiones intermedias no culpables con RFF > 0,80 y características de placa vulnerable frente a solo tratamiento médico óptimo en pacientes con IAMCEST a 4 años de seguimiento. Estudio de grupos paralelos, multicéntrico, controlado, aleatorizado 1:1 y simple ciego. Se incluirán 600 pacientes con IAMCEST y al menos una lesión intermedia no culpable que presenten RFF > 0,80 y características de placa vulnerable por OCT. El objetivo primario se define como fallo del vaso diana, compuesto de muerte cardiaca, infarto del vaso diana y necesidad de revascularización del vaso diana. El estudio incluye un registro paralelo para pacientes con RFF > 0,80 sin características de placa vulnerable. Se define placa vulnerable como fibroateromas lipídicos con carga de placa ≥ 70% y capa fibrosa fina (≤ 80 µm). El estudio VULNERABLE permitirá conocer el papel del tratamiento preventivo con stent de placas vulnerables no culpables funcionalmente no significativas en pacientes con IAMCEST. Se trata del primer estudio aleatorizado para el tratamiento de placas vulnerables guiado por OCT. Registrado en ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05599061).

Background: ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction complicated with no reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with adverse outcomes. Although several hyperemic drugs have been shown to improve the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow, optimal treatment of no reflow remains unsettled. Saline infusion at 20 mL/min via a dedicated microcatheter causes (flow‐mediated) hyperemia. The objective is to compare the efficacy of pharmacologic versus flow‐mediated hyperemia in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction complicated with no reflow. Methods and Results: In the RAIN‐FLOW (Treatment of Slow‐Flow After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Flow‐Mediated Hyperemia) study, 67 patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and no reflow were randomized to receive either pharmacologic‐mediated hyperemia with intracoronary adenosine or nitroprusside (n=30) versus flow‐mediated hyperemia (n=37). The angiographic corrected Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction frame count and the minimal microcirculatory resistance, as assessed with intracoronary pressure‐thermistor wire, dedicated microcatheter, and thermodilution techniques, were compared after study interventions. Both Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction frame count(40.2±23.1 versus 39.2±20.7; P =0.858) and minimal microcirculatory resistance (753.6±661.5 versus 993.3±740.8 Wood units; P =0.174) were similar between groups. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 3 flow was observed in 26.7% versus 27.0% ( P =0.899). Flow‐mediated hyperemia showed 2 different thermodilution patterns during saline infusion indicative of the severity of the no reflow phenomenon. In‐hospital death and nonfatal heart failure were observed in 10.4% and 26.9%, respectively. Conclusions: Both treatments showed similar (and limited) efficacy restoring coronary flow. Flow‐mediated hyperemia with thermodilution pattern assessment allowed the simultaneous characterization of the no reflow degree and response to hyperemia. No reflow was associated with a high rate of adverse outcomes. Further research is warranted to prevent and to treat no reflow in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04685941.

Revista Española de Cardiología: Interventional Cardiology

Revista Española de Cardiología: Interventional Cardiology

Revista Española de Cardiología: Interventional Cardiology

Background: ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) complicated with no reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with adverse outcomes. Although several hyperemic drugs have shown to improve the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow, optimal treatment of no reflow remains unsettled. Saline infusion at 20 ml/min via a dedicated microcatheter causes (flow-mediated) hyperemia. The objective is to compare the efficacy of pharmacologic vs . flow-mediated hyperemia in STEMI patients complicated with no reflow. Methods: STEMI patients with no reflow were randomized to receive either adenosine or nitroprusside vs . flow-mediated hyperemia. The angiographic corrected TIMI Frame Count (cTFC) and the Minimal Microcirculatory Resistance (MMR), as assessed with intracoronary pressure-thermistor wire, dedicated microcatheter and thermodilution techniques, were compared after study interventions. Results: Sixty-seven were included (30 allocated to pharmacologic and 37 to flow-mediated hyperemia). After study interventions, cTFC (40.2±23.1 vs . 39.2±20.7; p=0.858) and MMR (753.6±661.5 vs . 993.3±740.8 Wood units; p=0.174) were similar between groups. TIMI 3 flow was observed in 26.7% vs . 27.0% (p=0.899). Flow-mediated hyperemia showed two different thermodilution patterns during saline infusion indicative of the severity of the no reflow phenomenon. In-hospital death and non-fatal heart failure were observed in 10.4% and 26.9%, respectively. Conclusions: Both treatments showed similar (and limited) efficacy restoring coronary flow. Flow-mediated hyperemia with thermodilution pattern assessment allowed the simultaneous characterization of the no reflow degree and response to hyperemia. No reflow was associated with a high rate of adverse outcomes. Further research is warranted to prevent and to treat no reflow in STEMI patients ( NCT04685941 ).