Comparison of outcomes of coronary artery stenting in acute myocardial infarction due to massive coronary thrombosis

Introduction. Therapy of patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction and massive coronary thrombosis (TTG 3) is a far from solved problem of modern medicine, since often in such patients immediate stent implantation is associated with the development of myocardial hypoperfusion, reducing the long-term prognosis of life.

Aim. To evaluate short-term and long-term efficacy and safety of delayed and immediate coronary artery stenting techniques in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction and massive coronary thrombosis.

Material and methods. Comparative study in parallel groups, a total of 153 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and massive coronary thrombosis (TTG 3), 75 patients in the delayed coronary artery stenting group, 78 patients in the immediate coronary artery stenting group. In the immediate coronary artery stenting group, percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in one stage with stent implantation, in the delayed coronary artery stenting group; percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in two stages: the first was achieving TIMI-3 blood flow using a minimally invasive mechanical strategy, the second was control coronary angiography 5-6 days and the decision on the implantation of the stent. The primary endpoint is: the rate of achieving optimal myocardial perfusion according to angiography, the secondary combined endpoint is the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events.

Results. In the hospital period, optimal reperfusion (TIMI-3 and MBG 2-3) after the primary procedure was achieved in 88% in the delayed coronary artery stenting group and 69.2% of immediate coronary artery stenting with an advantage in the delayed coronary artery stenting group (p=0.005). Of the 75 patients in the delayed coronary artery stenting group, 38 patients (51%) did not receive a stent in the delayed period due to the insignificance of stenosis on the control coronary angiography. There was no significant difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events between the groups. In the long-term period, the median follow-up period was 47 months. The frequency of major adverse cardiovascular events was 13.3% in the delayed coronary artery stenting group and 23.1% in the immediate coronary artery stenting group, with a trend towards the advantage in the delayed coronary artery stenting group (p=0.1). Overall mortality (9.3% vs. 11.7%), recurrent myocardial infarction (2.6% vs. 5.1%), target vessel revascularization rate (1.3% vs. 6.4%) were without significant benefit. between subgroups.

Conclusion. In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and massive coronary thrombosis, the use of delayed coronary artery stenting gives an advantage in achieving myocardial perfusion after the procedure, and demonstrates a tendency to reduce adverse cardiovascular events in the long-term period.

1. Boytsov SA, Shakhnovich RM, Erlikh AD, Tereschenko SN, Kukava NG, Rytova YK, et al. Registry of acute myocardial infarction. REGION-MI – Russian registry of acute myocardial infarction. Kardiologiia. 2021;61(6):41-51. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18087/cardio.2021.6.n1595

2. Yamamoto MH, Kondo S, Mizukami T, Yasuhara S, Wakabayashi K, Kobayashi N, et al. TACTICS investigators. Rationale and design of the TACTICS registry: optical coherence tomography guided primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with acute coronary syndrome. J Cardiol. 2022;80(6):505–510. PMID: 35907707 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjcc.2022.07.002

3. Xiao Y, Fu X, Wang Y, Yanming F, Yanqiang W, Wenlu W, et al. Effects of different strategies on high thrombus burden in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary catheterization. Coron Artery Dis. 2019;30(8):555–563. PMID: 30998610 https://doi.org/10.1097/MCA.0000000000000743

4. Russian Society of Cardiology. Clinical practice guidelines for Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2020;25(11):4103. (In Russ.). https:// doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2020-4103

5. Schwartz BG, Kloner RA. Coronary no reflow. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2012;52(4):873– 882. PMID: 21712046 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjmcc.2011.06.009

6. Caiazzo G, Musci RL, Frediani L, Umińska J, Wanha W, Filipiak KJ, et al. State of the art: no-reflow phenomenon. Cardiol Clin. 2020;38(4):563-573. PMID: 33036718 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccl.2020.07.001

7. Choo EH, Kim PJ, Chang K, Ahn Y, Jeon DS, Lee JM, et al. The impact of no-reflow phenomena after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a timedependent analysis of mortality. Coron Artery Dis. 2014;25(5):392–398. PMID: 24625688 https://doi.org/10.1097/MCA.0000000000000108

8. Alkhalil M, Kuzemczak M, Zhao R, Kavvouras Ch, Cantor WJ, Overgaard ChB, et al. Prognostic role of residual thrombus burden following thrombectomy: insights from the TOTAL trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15(5):e011336. PMID: 35580203 https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.011336

9. Harrison RW, Aggarwal A, Ou FS, Klein LW, Rumsfeld JS, Roe MT, et al. Incidence and outcomes of no-reflow phenomenon during percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(2):178–184. PMID: 23111142 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.09.015

10. Choo E. Long-term prognostic impact of no-reflow phenomenon after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2013;128(22):A15199.

11. Kelbæk H, Høfsten DE, Køber L, Helqvist S, Kløvgaard L, Holmvang L, et al. Deferred versus conventional stent implantation in patients with STsegment elevation myocardial infarction (DANAMI 3-DEFER): an open-label, randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387 (10034):2199–2206. PMID: 27053444 https://doi.org/10.1016/S01406736(16)30072-1

12. Harbaoui B, Motreff P, Lantelme P. Delayed versus immediate stenting during STEMI: towards a «tailored» strategy for primary PCI? Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2016;109(6–7):373–375. PMID: 27173055 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acvd.2016.03.001

13. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci Ch, Bueno H, 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 myocardi al infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2018;39(2):119–177. PMID: 28886621 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ ehx393

14. Ganyukov VI. Deferred stent implantation in infarct related coronary artery in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Russian Journal of Endovascular Surgery. 2017;4(1):18–25. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24183/2409-40802017-4-1-18-25

15. Azarov AV, Semitko SP, Glezer МG, Akhramovich RV, Maloroev AI, Melnichenko IS, et al. The results of delayed endovascular intervention in ST elevation acute myocardial infarction due to thrombotic occlusion of coronary artery. Cardiovascular Therapy and Prevention. 2017;16(1):40–45. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15829/1728-8800-2017-1-40-45

16. Isaaz K, Gerbay A. Deferred stenting in acute ST elevation myocardial infarction. Lancet. 2016;388(10052):1371. PMID: 27707488 https://doi.org/10.1016/S01406736(16)31739-1

17. Harbaoui B, Courand P-Y, Besnard C, Dauphin R, Cassar E, Pierre L. Deferred vs immediate stenting in ST elevation myocardial infarction: potential interest in selected patients. Presse Med. 2015;44(11):e331–e339. PMID: 26474832 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2015.06.013

18. Luo D, Hu X, Sun S, Wang Ch, Yang X, Ye J, et al. The outcomes in STEMI patients with high thrombus burden treated by deferred versus immediate stent implantation in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a prospective cohort study. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(7):573. PMID: 33987271 https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-1130

19. Azarov AV, Semitko SP, Zhuravlev AS, Ioseliani DG, Kamolov IKh, Melnichenko IS, et al. Delayed endovascular surgery in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction due to massive culprit arterial thrombosis in the prevention of «slow/no-reflow» phenomenon. Cardiovascular Therapy and Prevention. 2021;20(5):2761. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15829/1728-8800-2021-2761

20. Azarov AV, Glezer MG, Zhuravlev AS, Babunashvili AM, Semitko SP, Rafaeli NR, et al. The role of deferred stenting in the treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Almanac of Clinical Medicine. 2022;50(2):77–93. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18786/2072-0505-2022-50-018

21. Karathanos A, Lin Y, Dannenberg L, Parco C, Schulze V, Brockmeyer M, et al. Routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor therapy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol. 2019;35(11):1576–1588. PMID: 31542257 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2019.05.003

22. He W, Cao M, Li Z. Effects of different doses of atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin on elderly patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (AMI) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Drug Dev Res. 2020;81(5):551–556. PMID: 32142170 https://doi.org/10.1002/ddr.21651

23. Magdy AM, Demitry SR, Hasan-Ali H, Zaky M, El-Hady MA, Ghany MA. Stenting deferral in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: explor ing benefits and suitable interval in heavy thrombus burden. Egypt Heart J. 2021;73(1):78. PMID: 34499263 https://doi.org/10.1186/s43044-021-00203-3