Download PDF
Int J Angiol 2021; 30(03): 212-220
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735201
Review Article

Three Technologies That Will Guide Revascularization of Chronic Coronary Syndrome Patients into the 21st Century: A Review

Michael A. Winkler
1   Department of Radiology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia
2   Department of Internal Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia
,
Ripa Patel
2   Department of Internal Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia
,
Weibo Fu
1   Department of Radiology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia
,
Vishal Arora
2   Department of Internal Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia
,
Neal L. Weintraub
2   Department of Internal Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia
3   Vascular Biology Center, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia
› Author Affiliations Funding Dr. Winkler receives research support from Terarecon, Ziosoft, Algomedica, and Teleflex. Dr. Arora receives research support from Terarecon. Dr. Weintraub is funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health (HL142097, HL134354, R56AG064895, and AR070029).
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Although medical therapy is the preferred first-line treatment for patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), revascularization remains an important consideration. We present a review that identifies the three diagnostic technologies most important to guiding the decision to revascularize patients with CCS: (1) cardiac computed tomography, (2) intracoronary imaging, and (3) lesion-specific physiological guidance.

Keywords

chronic coronary syndrome - medical therapy - revascularization - intravascular ultrasound - optical coherence tomography - cardiac computed tomography - fractional flow reserve - instantaneous wave-free ratio

Authors' Contributions

MW substantially contributed to the concept and design, drafting of the manuscript, literature review, summary and qualitative synthesis of publications related to noninvasive cardiovascular imaging and intracoronary imaging, and selection and annotation of figures.


RP was involved in literature review, some drafting, qualitative synthesis of publications related to lesion specific physiological guidance, and selection and annotation of figures.


WF was involved in literature review, some drafting, editing, and manuscript preparation.


VA was involved in concept and design, editing, and minor drafting.


NW was involved in concept and design, editing, final draft, integrity of the manuscript.




Publication History

Article published online:
25 August 2021

© 2021. International College of Angiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 The top Ten Causes of Death. World Health Organization Website. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death . Updated 9 December 2020, Accessed July 29, 2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ma J, Ward EM, Siegel RL, Jemal A. Temporal trends in mortality in the United States, 1969-2013. JAMA 2015; 314 (16) 1731-1739 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.12319. Erratum in: JAMA. 2015 Dec 8;314(22):2415. PMID: 26505597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mensah GA, Wei GS, Sorlie PD. et al. Decline in cardiovascular mortality: possible causes and implications. Circ Res 2017; 120 (02) 366-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Agostoni P, Biondi-Zoccai GG, Gasparini GL. et al. Is bare-metal stenting superior to balloon angioplasty for small vessel coronary artery disease? Evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J 2005; 26 (09) 881-889
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sabaté M, Brugaletta S, Cequier A. et al. Clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with everolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents (EXAMINATION): 5-year results of a randomised trial. Lancet 2016; 387 (10016): 357-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bønaa KH, Mannsverk J, Wiseth R. et al; NORSTENT Investigators. Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2016; 375 (13) 1242-1252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Buccheri S, Franchina G, Romano S. et al. Clinical outcomes following intravascular imaging-guided versus coronary angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of 31 studies and 17,882 patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10 (24) 2488-2498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH. et al; FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (03) 213-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Vij A, Kassab K, Chawla H. et al. Invasive therapy versus conservative therapy for patients with stable coronary artery disease: an updated meta-analysis. Clin Cardiol 2021; 44 (05) 675-682 ; Epub ahead of print DOI: 10.1002/clc.23592.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bangalore S, Maron DJ, Stone GW, Hochman JS. Routine revascularization versus initial medical therapy for stable ischemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Circulation 2020; 142 (09) 841-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Libby P, Theroux P. Pathophysiology of coronary artery disease. Circulation 2005; 111 (25) 3481-3488
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Meikle PJ, Wong G, Tsorotes D. et al. Plasma lipidomic analysis of stable and unstable coronary artery disease. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2011; 31 (11) 2723-2732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A. et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2020; 41 (03) 407-477 DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425. Erratum in: Eur Heart J. 2020 Nov 21;41(44):4242. PMID: 31504439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wolff G, Dimitroulis D, Andreotti F. et al. Survival benefits of invasive versus conservative strategies in heart failure in patients with reduced ejection fraction and coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Circ Heart Fail 2017; 10 (01) e003255 DOI: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.116.003255.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR. et al; ISCHEMIA Research Group. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2020; 382 (15) 1395-1407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Newby DE, Adamson PD, Berry C. et al; SCOT-HEART Investigators. Coronary CT angiography and 5-year risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (10) 924-933
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Adamson PD, Williams MC, Dweck MR. et al; SCOT-HEART Investigators. Guiding therapy by coronary CT angiography improves outcomes in patients with stable chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74 (16) 2058-2070
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Haase R, Schlattmann P, Gueret P. et al; COME-CCT Consortium. Diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease using computed tomography angiography in patients with stable chest pain depending on clinical probability and in clinically important subgroups: meta-analysis of individual patient data. BMJ 2019; 365:l1945: 1-15 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l1945.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mancini GBJ, Leipsic J, Budoff MJ. et al. CT angiography followed by invasive angiography in patients with moderate or severe ischemia-insights from the ISCHEMIA Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2021; 14 (07) 1384-1393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Stillman AE, Gatsonis C, Lima JAC. et al; RESCUE investigators *. Coronary computed tomography angiography compared with single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging as a guide to optimal medical therapy in patients presenting with stable angina: the rescue trial. J Am Heart Assoc 2020; 9 (24) e017993 DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.017993.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Koo BK, Erglis A, Doh JH. et al. Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW (Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58 (19) 1989-1997
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Min JK, Leipsic J, Pencina MJ. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA 2012; 308 (12) 1237-1245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mintz GS. Clinical utility of intravascular imaging and physiology in coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64 (02) 207-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Parise H, Maehara A, Stone GW, Leon MB, Mintz GS. Meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing intravascular ultrasound versus angiographic guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention in pre-drug-eluting stent era. Am J Cardiol 2011; 107 (03) 374-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Elgendy IY, Mahmoud AN, Elgendy AY, Bavry AA. Outcomes with intravascular ultrasound-guided stent implantation: a meta-analysis of randomized trials in the era of drug-eluting stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9 (04) e003700 DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.003700.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bavishi C, Sardar P, Chatterjee S. et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided vs angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in complex coronary lesions: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J 2017; 185: 26-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Darmoch F, Alraies MC, Al-Khadra Y, Moussa Pacha H, Pinto DS, Osborn EA. Intravascular ultrasound imaging-guided versus coronary angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2020; 9 (05) e013678 DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.119.013678.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cho S, Shin DH, Kim JS. et al. Rationale and design: impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents in long coronary lesions. Contemp Clin Trials 2015; 40: 90-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hong SJ, Kim BK, Shin DH. et al; IVUS-XPL Investigators. Effect of intravascular ultrasound-guided vs angiography-guided everolimus-eluting stent implantation: the IVUS-XPL randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015; 314 (20) 2155-2163 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.15454. Erratum in: JAMA. 2016 Feb 2;315(5):518. Kim, Yonghoon [corrected to Kim, Yong Hoon]. PMID: 26556051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hong SJ, Mintz GS, Ahn CM. et al; IVUS-XPL Investigators. Effect of intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: 5-year follow-up of the IVUS-XPL randomized trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2020; 13 (01) 62-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Zhang J, Gao X, Kan J. et al. Intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: the ULTIMATE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 72 (24) 3126-3137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Gao XF, Ge Z, Kong XQ. et al; ULTIMATE Investigators. 3-year outcomes of the ULTIMATE trial comparing intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2021; 14 (03) 247-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kubo T, Shinke T, Okamura T. et al. Optical frequency domain imaging vs. intravascular ultrasound in percutaneous coronary intervention (OPINION trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. J Cardiol 2016; 68 (05) 455-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kubo T, Shinke T, Okamura T. et al; OPINION Investigators. Optical frequency domain imaging vs. intravascular ultrasound in percutaneous coronary intervention (OPINION trial): one-year angiographic and clinical results. Eur Heart J 2017; 38 (42) 3139-3147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ali ZA, Karimi Galougahi K, Maehara A. et al. Outcomes of optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation: one-year results from the ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI trial. EuroIntervention 2021; 16 (13) 1085-1091
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Ali Z, Landmesser U, Karimi Galougahi K. et al. Optical coherence tomography-guided coronary stent implantation compared to angiography: a multicentre randomised trial in PCI - design and rationale of ILUMIEN IV: OPTIMAL PCI. EuroIntervention 2021; 16 (13) 1092-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Fearon WF, Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Siebert U, Pijls NH. FAME Study Investigators. Rationale and design of the fractional flow reserve versus angiography for multivessel evaluation (FAME) study. Am Heart J 2007; 154 (04) 632-636 DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.06.012. Erratum in: Am Heart J. 2007 Dec;154(6):1243. PMID: 17892983
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA. et al; FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56 (03) 177-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B. et al; FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2012; 367 (11) 991-1001 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1205361. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2012 Nov;367(18):1768. Mobius-Winckler, Sven [corrected to Möbius-Winkler, Sven]. PMID: 22924638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH. et al; FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2014; 371 (13) 1208-1217 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1408758. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 9;371(15):1465. PMID: 25176289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Xaplanteris P, Fournier S, Pijls NHJ. et al; FAME 2 Investigators. Five-year outcomes with PCI guided by fractional flow reserve. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (03) 250-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Fournier S, Ciccarelli G, Toth GG. et al. Association of improvement in fractional flow reserve with outcomes, including symptomatic relief, after percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA Cardiol 2019; 4 (04) 370-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Götberg M, Christiansen EH, Gudmundsdottir I. et al. Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve guided intervention (iFR-SWEDEHEART): rationale and design of a multicenter, prospective, registry-based randomized clinical trial. Am Heart J 2015; 170 (05) 945-950
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Götberg M, Christiansen EH, Gudmundsdottir IJ. et al; iFR-SWEDEHEART Investigators. Instantaneous wave-free ratio versus fractional flow reserve to guide PCI. N Engl J Med 2017; 376 (19) 1813-1823
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Davies JE, Sen S, Dehbi HM. et al. Use of the instantaneous wave-free ratio or fractional flow reserve in PCI. N Engl J Med 2017; 376 (19) 1824-1834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, Berg K. et al. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994; 344 (8934): 1383-1389
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Marlevi D, Edelman ER. Vascular lesion-specific drug delivery systems: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021; 77 (19) 2413-2431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Valgimigli M, Frigoli E, Leonardi S. et al; MATRIX Investigators. Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018; 392 (10150): 835-848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar