Instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided revascularization of non-culprit lesion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary disease: design and rationale of the WAVE registry.

BACKGROUND The optimal management of patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes and multivessel coronary artery disease is challenging. There is a growing body of evidence supporting invasive functional evaluation of multivessel disease with FFR or iFR has been added to the literature. In this regard, the WAVE study recently demonstrated the diagnostic accuracy of iFR functional assessment of non-culprit lesions in multivessel patients with STEMI. However, no studies have still verified the long-term clinical impact of an iFR-guided revascularization in this setting of patients. METHODS Patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI and presenting multivessel disease will be enrolled. After the treatment of the culprit lesion, an iFR-guided functional assessment of non-culprit lesions will be done: if iFR ≤ 0.89 PCI will be performed during the index procedure or staged. Conversely, iFR> 0.89 will be direct the patient towards a conservative approach. RESULTS The study start date was May 1, 2018. The enrollement phase was completed on March 30, 2020. The primary endpoint is the occurrence of Target Lesion Failure (TLF), a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization of the vessel previously assessed with iFR. Secondary end points include MACE (Cardiovascular death, non-fatal MI, any revascularization). CONCLUSIONS The aim of the present study is to evaluate the long-term clinical impact of an iFR-guided revascularization of the non-culprit lesions in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

[1]  A. Colombo,et al.  Angiography- versus physiology-guided complete revascularization in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease: who's the better gatekeeper in this setting? , 2020, European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes.

[2]  G. Chatellier,et al.  Rationale and design of the Flow Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FLOWER-MI) trial. , 2019, American heart journal.

[3]  Duolao Wang,et al.  Long-Term Follow-Up of Complete Versus Lesion-Only Revascularization in STEMI and Multivessel Disease: The CvLPRIT Trial. , 2019, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  M. Keltai,et al.  Timing of Staged Nonculprit Artery Revascularization in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: COMPLETE Trial. , 2019, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[5]  Á. Avezum,et al.  Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction. , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  M. Gnecchi,et al.  Early Complete Revascularization in Hemodynamically Stable Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease. , 2019, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[7]  Volkmar Falk,et al.  2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. , 2018, European heart journal.

[8]  G. Hindricks,et al.  2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). , 2018, European heart journal.

[9]  M. Nazzaro,et al.  Instantaneous wave‐free ratio and fractional flow reserve for the assessment of nonculprit lesions during the index procedure in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: The WAVE study , 2017, American heart journal.

[10]  L. Køber,et al.  Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Complete Revascularization Improves the Prognosis in Patients With ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Severe Nonculprit Disease: A DANAMI 3-PRIMULTI Substudy (Primary PCI in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease Treatment , 2017, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[11]  A. Jeremias,et al.  Use of the Instantaneous Wave‐free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  F. Neumann,et al.  Fractional Flow Reserve‐Guided Multivessel Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  E. Omerovic,et al.  Instantaneous Wave‐free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  Volker Klauss,et al.  Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[15]  L. Køber,et al.  Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3—PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[16]  H. Swanton,et al.  Randomized Trial of Complete Versus Lesion-Only Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for STEMI and Multivessel Disease , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[17]  R. Califf,et al.  Extent, location, and clinical significance of non-infarct-related coronary artery disease among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. , 2014, JAMA.

[18]  A. Briggs,et al.  Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS–NSTEMI randomized trial , 2014, European heart journal.

[19]  C. Berry,et al.  Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  U. Siebert,et al.  Fractional flow reserve in unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction experience from the FAME (Fractional flow reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. , 2011, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[21]  Samin K. Sharma,et al.  Culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease. , 2010, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[22]  U. Siebert,et al.  Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  G. Sangiorgi,et al.  A randomised trial of target-vessel versus multi-vessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-up , 2009, Heart.

[24]  Sunil V. Rao,et al.  Prevalence, predictors, and in-hospital outcomes of non-infarct artery intervention during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry). , 2009, The American journal of cardiology.

[25]  B. Gersh,et al.  Impact of multivessel disease on reperfusion success and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. , 2007, European heart journal.

[26]  J. Ottervanger,et al.  Long-term impact of multivessel disease on cause-specific mortality after ST elevation myocardial infarction treated with reperfusion therapy , 2006, Heart.

[27]  K. Lee,et al.  Multivessel coronary artery disease: a key predictor of short-term prognosis after reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Thrombolysis and Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (TAMI) Study Group. , 1991, American heart journal.