Multi-vessel stenting during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. A single-center experience

BACKGROUND: Recanalization of the culprit lesion is the main goal of primary angioplasty for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease are, therefore, usually subjected to staged procedures, with the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) confined to recanalization of the infarct-related artery (IRA). Theoretically at least, early relief of stenoses of non-infarct-related arteries could promote collateral circulation, which could help to limit the infarct size. However, the safety and feasibility of such an approach has not been adequately established. METHODS: In this single-center prospective study we examined 73 consecutive patients who had an acute STEMI and at least one or more lesions > or = 70% in a major epicardial vessel other than the infarct-related artery. In the first 28 patients, forming the multi-vessel (MV) PCI group, all lesions were treated during the primary procedure. In the following 45 patients, forming the culprit-only (CO) PCI group, only the culprit lesion was treated during the initial procedure, followed by either planned-staged or ischemia-driven revascularization of the non-culprit lesions. Fluoroscopy time and contrast dye amount were compared between both groups, and patients were followed up for one year for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and other significant clinical events. RESULTS: The two groups were well balanced in terms of clinical characteristics, number of diseased vessels and angiographic characteristics of the culprit lesion. In the MV-PCI group, 2.51 lesions per patient were treated using 2.96 +/- 1.34 stents (1.00 lesions and 1.76 +/- 1.17 stents in the CO-PCI group, both p < 0.001). The fluoroscopy time increased from 10.3 (7.2-16.9) min in the CO-PCI group to 12.5 (8.5-19.3) min in the MV-PCI group (p = 0.22), and the amount of contrast used from 200 (180-250) ml to 250 (200-300) ml, respectively (p = 0.16). Peak CK and CK-MB were significantly lower in patients of the MV-PCI group (843 +/- 845 and 135 +/- 125 vs 1652 +/- 1550 and 207 +/- 155 U/l, p < 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). Similar rates of major adverse cardiac events at one year were observed in the two groups (24% and 28% in multi-vessel and culprit treatment groups, p = 0.73). The incidence of new revascularization in both infarct- and non-infarct-related arteries was also similar (24% and 28%, respectively, p = 0.73). CONCLUSION: We may state from this limited experience that a multi-vessel stenting approach for patients with acute STEMI and multi-vessel disease is feasible and probably safe during routine clinical practice. Our data suggest that this approach may help to limit the infarct size. However, larger studies, perhaps using drug-eluting stents, are still needed to further evaluate the safety and efficiency of this procedure, and whether it is associated with a lower need of subsequent revascularization and lower costs.

Effect of the REG1 anticoagulation system versus bivalirudin on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (REGULATE-PCI): a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND REG1 is a novel anticoagulation system consisting of pegnivacogin, an RNA aptamer inhibitor of coagulation factor IXa, and anivamersen, a complementary sequence reversal oligonucleotide. We tested the hypothesis that near complete inhibition of factor IXa with pegnivacogin during percutaneous coronary intervention, followed by partial reversal with anivamersen, would reduce ischaemic events compared with bivalirudin, without increasing bleeding. METHODS We did a randomised, open-label, active-controlled, multicentre, superiority trial to compare REG1 with bivalirudin at 225 hospitals in North America and Europe. We planned to randomly allocate 13,200 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in a 1:1 ratio to either REG1 (pegnivacogin 1 mg/kg bolus [>99% factor IXa inhibition] followed by 80% reversal with anivamersen after percutaneous coronary intervention) or bivalirudin. Exclusion criteria included ST segment elevation myocardial infarction within 48 h. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned target lesion revascularisation by day 3 after randomisation. The principal safety endpoint was major bleeding. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01848106. The trial was terminated early after enrolment of 3232 patients due to severe allergic reactions. FINDINGS 1616 patients were allocated REG1 and 1616 were assigned bivalirudin, of whom 1605 and 1601 patients, respectively, received the assigned treatment. Severe allergic reactions were reported in ten (1%) of 1605 patients receiving REG1 versus one (<1%) of 1601 patients treated with bivalirudin. The composite primary endpoint did not differ between groups, with 108 (7%) of 1616 patients assigned REG1 and 103 (6%) of 1616 allocated bivalirudin reporting a primary endpoint event (odds ratio [OR] 1·05, 95% CI 0·80-1·39; p=0·72). Major bleeding was similar between treatment groups (seven [<1%] of 1605 receiving REG1 vs two [<1%] of 1601 treated with bivalirudin; OR 3·49, 95% CI 0·73-16·82; p=0·10), but major or minor bleeding was increased with REG1 (104 [6%] vs 65 [4%]; 1·64, 1·19-2·25; p=0·002). INTERPRETATION The reversible factor IXa inhibitor REG1, as currently formulated, is associated with severe allergic reactions. Although statistical power was limited because of early termination, there was no evidence that REG1 reduced ischaemic events or bleeding compared with bivalirudin. FUNDING Regado Biosciences Inc.