Next Article in Journal
The Risk and Benefits of Various Innovations in Fusion and Fusionless Surgery for AIS
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Peripheral Cooling on Upper Limb Tremor Severity and Functional Capacity in Persons with MS
Previous Article in Special Issue
Coronary Physiology: Modern Concepts for the Guidance of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions and Medical Therapy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 13
10.3390/jcm12134550
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Moving toward Precision Medicine in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Multimodal Assessment of Non-Culprit Lesions

by
Michele Bellino
1,
Angelo Silverio
1,
Luca Esposito
1,
Francesco Paolo Cancro
1,
Germano Junior Ferruzzi
1,
Marco Di Maio
1,
Antonella Rispoli
1,
Maria Giovanna Vassallo
1,
Francesca Maria Di Muro
2,
Gennaro Galasso
1,* and
Giuseppe De Luca
3,4
1
Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84084 Baronissi, Italy
2
Structural Interventional Cardiology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Clinica Medica, Careggi University Hospital, 50139 Florence, Italy
3
Division of Cardiology, AOU “Policlinico G. Martino”, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, 98166 Messina, Italy
4
Division of Cardiology, IRCCS Hospital Galeazzi-Sant’Ambrogio, 20161 Milan, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(13), 4550; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12134550
Submission received: 7 June 2023 / Revised: 1 July 2023 / Accepted: 5 July 2023 / Published: 7 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Complications, Diagnosis and Treatment of Angina)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease experience several recurrent adverse events that lead to poor outcomes. Given the complexity of treating these patients, and the extremely high risk of long-term adverse events, the assessment of non-culprit lesions becomes crucial. Recently, two trials have shown a possible clinical benefit into treat non-culprit lesions using a fraction flow reserve (FFR)-guided approach, compared to culprit-lesion-only PCI. However, the most recent FLOW Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (FLOWER-MI) trial did not show a benefit of the use of FFR-guided PCI compared to an angiography-guided approach. Otherwise, intracoronary imaging using optical coherence tomography (OCT), intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), or near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) could provide both quantitative and qualitative assessments of non-culprit lesions. Different studies have shown how the characterization of coronary lesions with intracoronary imaging could lead to clinical benefits in these peculiar group of patients. Moreover, non-invasive evaluations of NCLs have begun to take ground in this context, but more insights through adequately powered and designed studies are needed. The aim of this review is to outline the available techniques, both invasive and non-invasive, for the assessment of multivessel disease in patients with STEMI, and to provide a systematic guidance on the assessment and approach to these patients.

1. Introduction

Approximately half of patients suffering from ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) present with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) [1]. Patients with STEMI and multivessel disease (MVD) experience several recurrent adverse events that lead to poor outcomes [2,3,4]. According to the 2017 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, routine revascularization of non-culprit lesions in STEMI patients with MVD should be considered before hospital discharge (class II, level of evidence A) [5], while in 2021, in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (ACC/AHA/SCAI) Guidelines for Coronary Artery Revascularization, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-culprit lesions, planned as staged procedure after successful primary PCI, is recommended in patients with STEMI and MVD who are hemodynamically stable (class I, level of evidence A) [6].
Given the complexity of treating these patients, and the extremely high risk of long-term adverse events, the assessment of non-culprit lesions becomes crucial. Recently, two trials have shown a possible clinical benefit into treat non-culprit lesions using a fraction flow reserve (FFR)-guided approach compared to a culprit-lesion-only PCI [7,8]. However, the most recent FLOW Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (FLOWER-MI) trial did not show a benefit to the use of FFR-guided PCI compared to an angiography-guided approach [9]. Intracoronary imaging using optical coherence tomography (OCT), intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) could provide both quantitative and qualitative assessment of non-culprit lesions. Different studies have shown how the characterization of coronary lesions with intracoronary imaging could lead to clinical benefits in these peculiar groups of patients [10,11,12].
The aim of this review is to outline the available techniques, both invasive and non-invasive, for the assessment of MVD in patients with STEMI, and to provide a systematic guidance on the assessment and approach to these patients.

2. Risk of Non-Culprit-Related Events in Patients with ACS and Evidence from Literature Regarding Management

Several studies have evaluated the long-term risk of non-culprit-lesion-related events. The Preventive Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Trial (PRAMI) evaluated the efficacy of immediate multivessel PCI versus culprit-lesion-only PCI in 465 patients with STEMI and MVD. The patients were randomized into either immediate multivessel PCI or culprit-lesion-only PCI, and it was found that immediate multivessel PCI was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of the composite endpoint of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or refractory angina at three years follow-up (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21–0.58, p = 0.001), with an absolute risk reduction of 14 percentage points in the preventive-PCI group [13]. Moreover, the Complete versus Lesion-only Primary PCI (CvLPRIT) trial compared early multivessel PCI (at index procedure or staged at index admission) versus culprit-lesion-only PCI in 296 patients with STEMI and MVD. This study showed that immediate multivessel PCI was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, heart failure, and ischemia-driven revascularization at 12 months follow-up (10.0% vs. 21.2%, HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24–0.84, p = 0.009) [14]. In addition, The Danish Study of Optimal Acute Treatment of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction—Primary PCI in Patients With ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: Treatment of Culprit Lesion Only or Complete Revascularization (DANAMI-3 PRIMULTI) trial also evaluated the efficacy of early multivessel PCI (staged at index admission) versus culprit lesion PCI in 627 patients with STEMI and MVD, and found that immediate multivessel PCI was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) compared to culprit lesion PCI at one year follow-up (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38–0.83, p = 0.004) [7]. More recently, the FFR Guided Revascularization Versus Conventional Strategy in Acute STEMI Patients With MVD (COMPARE-ACUTE) trial evaluated in 885 patients with STEMI and MVD; the effectiveness of culprit-lesion-only treatment versus complete revascularization and demonstrated a significant reduction of the composite primary endpoint (all-cause mortality, non-fatal MI, any revascularization, and cerebrovascular events) in patients who underwent complete revascularization (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22–0.55, p < 0.001) [8]. However, the aforementioned trials were not powered enough to detect significant differences between the components of the composite primary endpoint, when taken individually, and the composite primary endpoints were mainly powered by the ischemia-driven revascularization, with a non-significant difference in the recurrence of MI and all-cause mortality between the two groups.
Finally, the recent Complete vs. Culprit-only Revascularization to Treat Multi-vessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI (COMPLETE) trial was the largest trial evaluating the culprit-lesion-only PCI vs. complete revascularization, enrolling 4041 patients with STEMI and MVD disease, and found that complete revascularization was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization at three years follow-up (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43–0.61, p < 0.001) [15]. This was the first study to demonstrate that routine non-culprit lesion PCI with the goal of complete revascularization confers a reduction in the long-term risk of cardiovascular death or recurrent MI, regardless of the timing of the intervention (immediate or deferred) [15]. Notably, in this trial, although the FFR was used to evaluate non-culprit lesions that had an angiographically determined degree of stenosis between 50 and 69% the percentage of patients undergoing intracoronary physiology was extremely low. The poor use of this technique has raised several questions regarding the number of PCIs that could have been avoided [16]. However, the recent FLOWER-MI study showed no significant superiority of using an FFR-guided approach over angiography-guided revascularization in patients with STEMI and MVD [9]. On the other hand, non-significant lesions at intracoronary physiology may hide unstable plaques that could precipitate further events; this could highlight the possibility of an imaging-guided complete revascularization with a more complete qualitative assessment of the plaque.
Recently, a metanalysis including all the aforementioned trials, including a total of 6528 patients, demonstrated that complete revascularization based on PCI of non-culprit lesions decreases cardiovascular mortality and the recurrence of MI and repeated revascularization [17].
The most recent Direct Complete Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease (BIOVASC) trial evaluated the timing of complete revascularization in 764 ACS patients, randomized to immediate multivessel PCI at index procedure or staged multivessel PCI within 6 weeks, showing that immediate revascularization at the index procedure is non-inferior to staged revascularization for the primary composite outcome (all-cause mortality, MI, any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or cerebrovascular events); however, immediate complete PCI was associated with a significant reduction in recurrent MI and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization [18].
Table 1 summarizes the most relevant clinical trial comparing culprit-only vs. complete revascularization in patients with STEMI (Figure 1).
The mechanisms underlying non-culprit-lesion-related events in patients with STEMI are complex and multifactorial. These patients frequently show an extensive disease burden of coronary vessels that could lead to plaque instability and thrombosis via different pathways [10,19]. The inflammatory mediators released during the acute phase of STEMI could promote destabilization of non-culprit plaques, promoting thrombosis or causing plaque rupture and subsequent events [20]. In addition, the inflammatory trigger may promote endothelial damage in the microcirculation, leading to microvascular dysfunction, which may facilitate ischemia in the myocardial areas supplied by non-culprit vessels [21]. Moreover, non-culprit lesions may eventually undergo disease progression with an increase in plaque size and possible plaque destabilization, also considering the higher prevalence in these patients of cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease, all of which are major contributors to the disease progression of non-culprit lesions [22,23].
Understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the risk of future events related to the presence of non-culprit lesions emphasizes the importance of an accurate assessment of multivessel disease in patients with STEMI in order to choose the best strategy for the treatment of these patients and improve their outcomes [24].

3. Invasive Assessment

3.1. Searching for Ischemia: Can We Rely on Coronary Physiology?

While randomized clinical trials have demonstrated a significant reduction in adverse events in MI patients undergoing complete versus culprit-only revascularization [25], it is not clear which is the optimal strategy to assess the severity of non-culprit lesions (NCLs). Coronary angiography is the most common and quickly available tool for the evaluation of NCLs during the index procedure. Moreover, the trials that demonstrated a prognostic benefit of complete revascularization used an angiography-guided strategy in most cases [7,8,13,14,15]. However, coronary angiography has several limitations. First, there is a significant discrepancy between angiographical assessment and functional significance [26,27]. This discordancy may be even more evident in patients presenting with ACS, in whom the degree of NCLs may be overestimated by approximately 10% in the acute setting, primarily due to a more pronounced vasoconstriction [28]. Indeed, the treatment of all angiographically significant lesions may lead to unnecessary PCI procedures. To overcome these limitations, a physiology-guided strategy with fractional flow reserve (FFR) or non-hyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs) is a reasonable option for the assessment of NCLs. In patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), physiology-guided PCI has shown to be superior to an angiography-guided strategy, and to reduce the risk of urgent revascularization compared to medical therapy alone [29,30]. However, these findings cannot be automatically translated into the management of NCLs in patients with ACS. Compared to patients with CCS, ACS patients have a different biological and clinical profile, that is reflected by the high risk of recurrent events [31]. In these patents, the NCL-related risk of adverse events may be closely related to plaque morphology rather than to functional significance. Therefore, the deferral of non-flow limiting stenoses may still expose to the risk of adverse events related to the presence of high-risk morphological features, such as a thin fibrous cap, high lipid burden, and inflammation. Moreover, transient changes in microvascular physiology, in the acute phase of an MI, may affect the reliability of both hyperemic and non-hyperemic indexes [32,33,34]. These changes occur not only in the territory of the infarct-related artery, but also in areas of myocardium supplied by NCLs, especially in case of large infarcts [35]. FFR is the whole cycle ratio between distal coronary pressure (Pd) and aortic pressure (Pa) in a condition of maximal hyperemia, usually induced by the administration of adenosine. However, in the acute or subacute phase of an MI, hyperemic flow may be reduced, and tends to normalize within months from the acute event [36]. Several alterations in microvascular function are responsible for the reduction of hyperemic flow, such as a reduced response to adenosine, the enhanced microvascular vasoconstriction, and the microvascular compression due to edema, and increased end-diastolic pressures [37]. Because the reliability of FFR measurements is related to the induction of the maximal hyperemic state, a reduced hyperemic flow may induce the underestimation of the functional significance of NCLs [38,39]. Furthermore, several real-world data showed that FFR is significantly underused by the interventional cardiology community in the assessment of angiographically intermediate stenoses, even in patients with stable CAD [40,41]. Considering the acute clinical setting, the additional procedural time, and the need for adenosine administration, FFR might be even less adopted in patients with ACS.
Moreover, additional questions about the role of FFR in patients with MVD were raised by the FAME 3 study. In this trial, an FFR-guided PCI strategy did not meet the noninferiority margin compared to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel disease [42,43]. However, although about 40% of the patients enrolled had a non-ST segment elevation ACS, this trial was not specifically designed to assess the role of FFR in patients with ACS and MVD, and STEMI was an exclusion criteria.
On the other hand, NHPRs measure resting Pd/Pa during the entire cardiac cycle, or during specific phases of the diastole, depending on the specific index [39]. However, during the acute phase of an MI, resting flow may be increased, probably due to the compensatory hyperkinesia in non-infarct related territories [35,37]. Therefore, NHPRs may overestimate the functional significance of NCLs.
To date, two randomized clinical trials compared physiology-guided vs. angiography-guided PCIs of NCLs in patients with MI. The FLOWER-MI trial randomized 1171 patients with STEMI and MVD to either the FFR- or angiography-guided complete revascularization strategy. The number of NCL-PCI was significantly lower in the FFR-guided group (66% vs. 97%). At 12 months, there was no difference between the two groups for the primary composite outcome of death, MI, or urgent revascularization (5.5% FFR-guided vs. 4.2% angiography-guided, hazard ratio (HR) 1.32; 95% confidence interval 0.78–2.23; p= 0.31). The Kaplan–Meier curves appeared to separate late, in support of an angiography-guided strategy. However, due to the very low event rate and the wide confidence interval, the authors state that no definite conclusions can be drawn based on these data [9]. In the FRAME-MI trial, 562 patients with MI (both STEMI and NSTEMI) were randomized to FFR- or angiography-guided complete revascularization. The original sample size was 1292 patients, but the trial was stopped prematurely by the executive committee due to slow recruitment because of the COVID-19 pandemic. NCL-PCI was performed less frequently in the FFR-guided group (64% vs. 97%). At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary endpoint of death, MI, or repeat revascularization was reduced in the FFR-guided arm compared to the angiography-guided arm (7.4% vs. 19.7%, HR 0.43, p = 0.003) [44]. However, due to the relatively small sample size and the low event rate in both trials, these contradictory results should be interpreted with caution, and larger-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to clarify the role of physiology-guided complete revascularization in patients with MI.

3.2. Intravascular Imaging: The Dilemma of the “Vulnerable Plaques”

Over the past decades, several studies showed that sudden cardiac death and MI usually arise from the rupture, erosion, or ulceration of high-risk atherosclerotic plaques, followed by the thrombotic occlusion of a coronary artery. This observation led to the identification of the so-called “vulnerable” plaque, defined as any plaque at risk of progression and instability, with the potential of becoming a culprit lesion of an ACS. These plaques are usually characterized by specific high-risk features, like the presence of a large lipidic burden, a necrotic core, and a thin fibrous cap (tin-cap fibroatheroma, TFCA) [45]. While the association between vulnerable plaques and adverse coronary events was first observed in autopsy findings, the introduction of intravascular imaging (IVI) allowed an in vivo assessment of the natural history of coronary atherosclerosis and of the mechanisms of ACS [46]. The identification of high-risk atherosclerotic plaques is particularly relevant in the assessment of NCLs in patients with MI, given the high risk of recurrent events in this setting [4,31,32,47]. In the PROSPECT study, 697 patients with a recent ACS, treated with PCI of all culprit lesions, underwent three-vessel angiography and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) for the assessment of non-flow limiting plaques. At a mediant follow-up of 3.4 years, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was 20.4%, nearly equally distributed between culprit- (12.9%) and non-culprit-related (11.6%) events. Of note, multivariable analysis showed that a plaque burden ≥ 70%, minimal lumen area (MLA) ≤ 4 mm2, and the presence of a TCFA were independently associated with the incidence of adverse events [10]. However, due to its limited resolution, IVUS could not provide sufficient data on specific features of plaque vulnerability, including lipid burden, thrombus formation, and fibrous cap thickness. To partially overcome these limitations, near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) was combined with IVUS for the assessment of vulnerable plaques. Indeed, this technology combines the ability of NIRS to evaluate lipid content, and the information provided by IVUS regarding plaque burden and MLA. In the PROSPECT-II study, NIRS-IVUS was used for the evaluation of NCLs in patients with a recent MI. The authors found that most of adverse events at follow-up were related to mild lesions that were non-flow limiting at the time of the index event, and that large plaque burden and high lipidic content were independent predictors of NCL-related adverse events [48].
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a near-infrared, light-based imaging technology, with an axial resolution of approximately 10–15 μm, that generates high-resolution reconstructions of the vessel microstructure [49]. Given its ability to evaluate plaque composition, OCT has become the gold standard for the assessment of plaque vulnerability (Table 2). Aside from the typical features of high-risk plaques (i.e., lipid pool and fibrous cap thickness), OCT allowed the detection of additional aspects of vulnerable plaques, like macrophages infiltration and neovascularization (Figure 2 and Figure 3) [50,51]. Several OCT studies assessed the association between vulnerable plaque features and clinical outcomes. In the prospective CLIMA study, Prati et al. found that the presence of MLA < 3.5 mm2, a lipid arc with circumferential extension > 180°, and macrophages, were all independently associated with the risk of cardiac death and target segment MI [52]. Kubo et al., in a prospective study on 1378 patients and 3533 NCLs, showed that, at a median follow-up of 6 years, NCLs that were both lipid-rich and TCFA were associated with approximatively a 17-fold increase in the risk of subsequent ACS [11]. In the COMBINE-OCT trial, the presence of a TCFA was associated with a nearly five-fold increase in the risk of MACE in diabetic patients with negative FFR [53]. These data show that IVI allows the identification of high-risk plaques with the greatest probability to progress and cause an ACS. However, the optimal treatment of vulnerable plaques remains an unanswered question. While the revascularization of angiographically and/or functionally significant NCLs has shown to reduce adverse events in patients with ACS [25], whether the prophylactic revascularization of non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques may improve long-term outcome is unknown. In the PROSPECT ABSORB trial, NIRS-IVUS-guided PCI with bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) of non-obstructive lesions with large plaque burden was safe, and was associated with comparable clinical outcomes and significantly higher MLA compared to medical therapy alone at 2 years [54]. However, although attractive, these data should be considered as hypothesis-generating, and should be confirmed in adequately powered randomized clinical trials. To date, there is no evidence supporting routine PCI for angiographically mild high-risk plaques, and future studies are needed to address the unsolved dilemma of the vulnerable plaques.
Medical therapy, especially with novel aggressive lipid lowering agents, is of paramount importance to achieve plaque stabilization. The PACMAN-AMI and the HUYGENS trials assessed the effect of alirocumab and evolocumab, respectively, in addition to high-intensity statin therapy on non-flow-limiting NCLs of patients with a recent ACS. Plaque morphology was assessed by OCT alone in HUYGENS, and with both OCT and NIRS-IVUS in PACMAN-AMI. These studies demonstrated a trend toward plaque stabilization in patients treated with PCSK9-inhibitors compared to patients treated with high-intensity statins alone, with a significant reduction of plaque burden at IVUS and of maximum lipid core burden index at NIRS, and a significant increase in fibrous cap thickness at OCT [55,56]. Further studies should evaluate whether these morphological features of plaque stabilization may translate into improved clinical outcomes.

4. Non-Invasive Assessment: Anatomical vs. Functional Tests

The presence of non-culprit lesions which lead to residual ischemia could also be assessed by non-invasive diagnostic techniques. According to latest guidelines, the timing and appropriate non-invasive assessment, including anatomical and functional tests, to detect ischemia and myocardial viability in patients with non-culprit lesions and recent acute coronary syndrome, remains to be determined, and depends on local availability and expertise [5,57].
In recent years, the coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has evolved as a logistically accurate, low-risk, non-invasive test to diagnose or rule-out CCS [58]. In addition, recent advances in CCTA and computational fluid dynamics technologies allow simultaneous acquisition of anatomical parameters, identification of high-risk plaque features, and assessment of non-invasive hemodynamic [59,60], which allow performance of rapid clinical decision making in low-risk patients presenting with acute chest pain in the emergency department [61,62], and to rule-out clinically significant coronary artery disease in low-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) [63].
In the setting of acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, the vulnerability of non-culprit lesions is an important factor that could predispose to recurrent ischemia; this explains the necessity to identify high-risk plaque characteristics [64]. In this context, the emerging role of high-risk plaque features assessment by CCTA, such as low-attenuation plaque, napkin ring sign, positive remodeling and spotty plaque calcification, provides an opportunity to personalize risk assessment of future acute coronary syndrome events [65,66,67,68]. Several studies were performed to detect the predictive value of high-risk plaque features using CCTA. The PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) and SCOT-HEART (Scottish Computed Tomography of the Heart) studies showed an increased number of major cardiovascular events in patients with high-risk plaque features detection by CCTA; however, these results are limited by modest positive predictive value of high-risk plaque features for the identifying of subsequent coronary events [69,70].
Besides the estimation of plaques features, an accurate assessment of hemodynamic parameters is critical for the identification of high-risk untreated non-culprit lesions [71,72]. In recent years, CCTA-derived FFR (FFR-CCTA) has used an advanced fluid dynamic analysis method that combines the advantages of non-invasive CCTA and traditional invasive FFR. This processing technology derives hemodynamic parameters from CCTA image data, in order to quantify the hemodynamic impact of coronary artery stenosis [72,73,74]. In a previous study, Lee and colleagues enrolled patients with documented acute coronary syndrome, and evaluated non-culprit stenosis by CCTA; the authors showed that non-invasive hemodynamic assessment by computational fluid dynamics might help to identify high-risk plaques that subsequently cause the recurrence of acute coronary syndrome [71]. However, the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive hemodynamic parameters assessed by CCTA for the detection of ischemia in non-culprit vessels is modest, and limited compared to traditional invasive wire-based hemodynamic assessment in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease [75]. Indeed, Gaur and colleagues investigated the diagnostic performance of non-invasive hemodynamic parameters assessed by CCTA, compared to traditional invasive coronary angiography with FFR, in 124 non-culprit lesions of 60 patients with recent ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); the authors reported that the diagnostic performance of the non-invasive approach for staged detection of ischemia in STEMI patients with multivessel disease is only moderate when compared to invasive FFR [75].
Coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) with transthoracic Doppler echocardiography is another non-invasive functional test, which has shown that deferred revascularization is safe and associated with excellent long-term clinical outcomes in patients with untreated non-culprit lesions and recent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), if CFVR > 2 [76].
In later years, the focus has been placed on non-invasive cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging that allows simultaneous assessment of left ventricular function, transmural extent of myocardial scar tissue, and stress myocardial perfusion [77,78]. More recently, Everaars and colleagues demonstrated that stress perfusion CMR with adenosine might help to identify residual ischemia in non-culprit territory lesions after recent STEMI, although agreement with invasive FFR assessment at 1 month was moderate [79].
Few and limited studies have investigated residual ischemia in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease by non-invasive testing, so further research is needed to clarify whether this approach can be helpful to clinicians in identifying patients with untreated non-culprit lesions with vulnerable features and higher risk of future cardiovascular events.

5. Future Perspectives

Currently, the decision of optimal timing to identify the hemodynamic relevance of non-culprit lesions remains controversial in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease [33,34,38,80].
The FULL-REVASC study (NCT02862) will compare a PCI strategy for non-culprit lesions guided by immediate versus staged FFR in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease to detect differences in all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization at 1 year [81,82].
The iMODERN trial (NCT03298659) will compare an iFR-guided approach of non-culprit lesions during the acute setting with a deferred stress perfusion CMR-guided strategy during the outpatient follow-up to determine the optimal therapeutic approach for STEMI patients with multivessel disease.
Finally, intracoronary imaging can help identify high-risk features of vulnerable non-culprit lesions; however, the positive predictive value derived from intracoronary imaging for the occurrence of future cardiovascular events is limited [10,52].
The PREVENT study (NCT02316886) will investigate whether preventive PCI of non-significant hemodynamic parameters assessment by invasive FFR in non-culprit stenosis (FFR > 0.80) with vulnerable plaque features and optimal medical therapy may improve the clinical outcome compared with optimal medical therapy alone.
Despite the new light shed by several recent studies on the management of non-culprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, several knowledge gaps remain; only large, well-designed and adequately powered randomized trials will be able to answer them.

6. Conclusions

Acute coronary syndromes make up a large percentage of the burden of modern-day cardiovascular disease. Although, over the years, we have achieved much progress in identifying the correct timing of intervention and increasingly precise peri-procedural and long-term therapy, further efforts need to be perpetuated to refine the indications of the latest technologies, invasive and non-invasive, in the diagnostic–therapeutic pathway of patients with ACS and MVD (Figure 4).
Within this scenario, the clinical condition takes the lead regarding the timing.
Complete revascularization could be performed at the time of primary PCI in patients with low clinical risk, i.e., low risk NCLs.
On the other hand, complete revascularization in high-risk patients (low ejection fraction, high probability of acute kidney injury, etc.) with high-risk lesions (left main, bifurcation, heavily calcified lesions), should be performed at a staged time after a discussion by the heart team about the exclusion of heart surgery and optimal medical therapy.
Regarding functional tests, they should preferably be avoided in the acute phase, and should be performed at a staged time once better hemodynamic stabilization is achieved, to identify NCLs worthy of undergoing angioplasty.
Instead, invasive coronary imaging, especially OCT, could be adopted to identify culprit lesions in uncertain angiographic pictures and should be adopted, at a staged time, for the proper identification of vulnerable lesions and optimization of angioplasty.
Non-invasive evaluation of NCLs has begun to take ground in this context, but more insights through adequately powered and designed studies are needed.
In the end, the forthcoming advent of new platforms, capable of simultaneously providing anatomical and functional information, will provide more data and enable tailoring the indications for each method and identify the best operational strategy regarding the treatment of NCLs in ACS.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, review and editing: M.B., A.S. and M.D.M. Writing—original draft: L.E., F.P.C. and G.J.F. Visualization: A.R., M.G.V. and F.M.D.M. Supervision: G.G. and G.D.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Park, D.W.; Clare, R.M.; Schulte, P.J.; Pieper, K.S.; Shaw, L.K.; Califf, R.M.; Ohman, E.M.; Van de Werf, F.; Hirji, S.; Harrington, R.A.; et al. Extent, location, and clinical significance of non-infarct-related coronary artery disease among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA 2014, 312, 2019–2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sorajja, P.; Gersh, B.J.; Cox, D.A.; McLaughlin, M.G.; Zimetbaum, P.; Costantini, C.; Stuckey, T.; Tcheng, J.E.; Mehran, R.; Lansky, A.J.; et al. Impact of multivessel disease on reperfusion success and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. Eur. Heart J. 2007, 28, 1709–1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Parodi, G.; Memisha, G.; Valenti, R.; Trapani, M.; Migliorini, A.; Santoro, G.M.; Antoniucci, D. Five year outcome after primary coronary intervention for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction: Results from a single centre experience. Heart 2005, 91, 1541–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Galasso, G.; De Angelis, E.; Silverio, A.; Di Maio, M.; Cancro, F.P.; Esposito, L.; Bellino, M.; Scudiero, F.; Damato, A.; Parodi, G.; et al. Predictors of Recurrent Ischemic Events in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Am. J. Cardiol. 2021, 159, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ibanez, B.; James, S.; Agewall, S.; Antunes, M.J.; Bucciarelli-Ducci, C.; Bueno, H.; Caforio, A.L.P.; Crea, F.; Goudevenos, J.A.; Halvorsen, S.; 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). Eur. Heart J. 2018, 39, 119–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Lawton, J.S.; Tamis-Holland, J.E.; Bangalore, S.; Bates, E.R.; Beckie, T.M.; Bischoff, J.M.; Bittl, J.A.; Cohen, M.G.; DiMaio, J.M.; Don, C.W.; et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2022, 145, e18–e114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Engstrøm, T.; Kelbæk, H.; Helqvist, S.; Høfsten, D.E.; Kløvgaard, L.; Holmvang, L.; Jørgensen, E.; Pedersen, F.; Saunamäki, K.; Clemmensen, P.; 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. Lancet 2015, 386, 665–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Smits, P.C.; Abdel-Wahab, M.; Neumann, F.J.; Boxma-de Klerk, B.M.; Lunde, K.; Schotborgh, C.E.; Piroth, Z.; Horak, D.; Wlodarczak, A.; Ong, P.J.; et al. Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Multivessel Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 376, 1234–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Puymirat, E.; Cayla, G.; Simon, T.; Steg, P.G.; Montalescot, G.; Durand-Zaleski, I.; le Bras, A.; Gallet, R.; Khalife, K.; Morelle, J.F.; et al. Multivessel PCI Guided by FFR or Angiography for Myocardial Infarction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stone, G.W.; Maehara, A.; Lansky, A.J.; de Bruyne, B.; Cristea, E.; Mintz, G.S.; Mehran, R.; McPherson, J.; Farhat, N.; Marso, S.P.; et al. A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011, 364, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kubo, T.; Ino, Y.; Mintz, G.S.; Shiono, Y.; Shimamura, K.; Takahata, M.; Terada, K.; Higashioka, D.; Emori, H.; Wada, T.; et al. Optical coherence tomography detection of vulnerable plaques at high risk of developing acute coronary syndrome. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2021. online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Waksman, R.; Di Mario, C.; Torguson, R.; Ali, Z.A.; Singh, V.; Skinner, W.H.; Artis, A.K.; Cate, T.T.; Powers, E.; Kim, C.; et al. Identification of patients and plaques vulnerable to future coronary events with near-infrared spectroscopy intravascular ultrasound imaging: A prospective, cohort study. Lancet 2019, 394, 1629–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wald, D.S.; Morris, J.K.; Wald, N.J.; Chase, A.J.; Edwards, R.J.; Hughes, L.O.; Berry, C.; Oldroyd, K.G. Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 369, 1115–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Gershlick, A.H.; Khan, J.N.; Kelly, D.J.; Greenwood, J.P.; Sasikaran, T.; Curzen, N.; Blackman, D.J.; Dalby, M.; Fairbrother, K.L.; Banya, W.; et al. Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: The CvLPRIT trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015, 65, 963–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Mehta, S.R.; Wood, D.A.; Storey, R.F.; Mehran, R.; Bainey, K.R.; Nguyen, H.; Meeks, B.; Di Pasquale, G.; López-Sendón, J.; Faxon, D.P.; et al. Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 1411–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Burgess, S.N.; Juergens, C.P.; French, J.K. Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1568–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pavasini, R.; Biscaglia, S.; Barbato, E.; Tebaldi, M.; Dudek, D.; Escaned, J.; Casella, G.; Santarelli, A.; Guiducci, V.; Gutierrez-Ibanes, E.; et al. Complete revascularization reduces cardiovascular death in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Eur. Heart J. 2020, 41, 4103–4110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Diletti, R.; den Dekker, W.K.; Bennett, J.; Schotborgh, C.E.; van der Schaaf, R.; Sabaté, M.; Moreno, R.; Ameloot, K.; van Bommel, R.; Forlani, D.; et al. Immediate versus staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease (BIOVASC): A prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial. Lancet 2023, 401, 1172–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rioufol, G.; Finet, G.; Ginon, I.; André-Fouët, X.; Rossi, R.; Vialle, E.; Desjoyaux, E.; Convert, G.; Huret, J.F.; Tabib, A. Multiple atherosclerotic plaque rupture in acute coronary syndrome: A three-vessel intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation 2002, 106, 804–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Heusch, G.; Libby, P.; Gersh, B.; Yellon, D.; Böhm, M.; Lopaschuk, G.; Opie, L. Cardiovascular remodelling in coronary artery disease and heart failure. Lancet 2014, 383, 1933–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Konijnenberg, L.S.F.; Damman, P.; Duncker, D.J.; Kloner, R.A.; Nijveldt, R.; van Geuns, R.M.; Berry, C.; Riksen, N.P.; Escaned, J.; van Royen, N. Pathophysiology and diagnosis of coronary microvascular dysfunction in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc. Res. 2020, 116, 787–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Libby, P. Mechanisms of acute coronary syndromes and their implications for therapy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 368, 2004–2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Bangalore, S.; Toklu, B.; Feit, F. Outcomes with coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with diabetes mellitus: Can newer generation drug-eluting stents bridge the gap? Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2014, 7, 518–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Berntorp, K.; Rylance, R.; Yndigegn, T.; Koul, S.; Fröbert, O.; Christiansen, E.H.; Erlinge, D.; Götberg, M. Clinical Outcome of Revascularization Deferral with Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve: A 5-Year Follow-Up Substudy From the iFR-SWEDEHEART Trial. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2023, 12, e028423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bainey, K.R.; Engstrøm, T.; Smits, P.C.; Gershlick, A.H.; James, S.K.; Storey, R.F.; Wood, D.A.; Mehran, R.; Cairns, J.A.; Mehta, S.R. Complete vs Culprit-Lesion-Only Revascularization for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol. 2020, 5, 881–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tonino, P.A.; Fearon, W.F.; De Bruyne, B.; Oldroyd, K.G.; Leesar, M.A.; Ver Lee, P.N.; Maccarthy, P.A.; Van’t Veer, M.; Pijls, N.H. Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010, 55, 2816–2821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Toth, G.; Hamilos, M.; Pyxaras, S.; Mangiacapra, F.; Nelis, O.; De Vroey, F.; Di Serafino, L.; Muller, O.; Van Mieghem, C.; Wyffels, E.; et al. Evolving concepts of angiogram: Fractional flow reserve discordances in 4000 coronary stenoses. Eur. Heart J. 2014, 35, 2831–2838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Hanratty, C.G.; Koyama, Y.; Rasmussen, H.H.; Nelson, G.I.; Hansen, P.S.; Ward, M.R. Exaggeration of nonculprit stenosis severity during acute myocardial infarction: Implications for immediate multivessel revascularization. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2002, 40, 911–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Tonino, P.A.; De Bruyne, B.; Pijls, N.H.; Siebert, U.; Ikeno, F.; van `t Veer, M.; Klauss, V.; Manoharan, G.; Engstrøm, T.; Oldroyd, K.G.; et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 360, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. De Bruyne, B.; Pijls, N.H.; Kalesan, B.; Barbato, E.; Tonino, P.A.; Piroth, Z.; Jagic, N.; Möbius-Winkler, S.; Rioufol, G.; Witt, N.; et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 991–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Jernberg, T.; Hasvold, P.; Henriksson, M.; Hjelm, H.; Thuresson, M.; Janzon, M. Cardiovascular risk in post-myocardial infarction patients: Nationwide real world data demonstrate the importance of a long-term perspective. Eur. Heart J. 2015, 36, 1163–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Kaziród-Wolski, K.; Sielski, J.; Gąsior, M.; Bujak, K.; Hawranek, M.; Pyka, Ł.; Gierlotka, M.; Pawłowski, T.; Siudak, Z. Factors affecting short- and long-term survival of patients with acute coronary syndrome treated invasively using intravascular ultrasound and fractional flow reserve: Analysis of data from the Polish Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes 2017–2020. Kardiol. Pol. 2023, 81, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Van der Hoeven, N.W.; Janssens, G.N.; de Waard, G.A.; Everaars, H.; Broyd, C.J.; Beijnink, C.W.H.; van de Ven, P.M.; Nijveldt, R.; Cook, C.M.; Petraco, R.; et al. Temporal Changes in Coronary Hyperemic and Resting Hemodynamic Indices in Nonculprit Vessels of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. JAMA Cardiol. 2019, 4, 736–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Thim, T.; Götberg, M.; Fröbert, O.; Nijveldt, R.; van Royen, N.; Baptista, S.B.; Koul, S.; Kellerth, T.; Bøtker, H.E.; Terkelsen, C.J.; et al. Nonculprit Stenosis Evaluation Using Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2017, 10, 2528–2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. De Waard, G.A.; Hollander, M.R.; Teunissen, P.F.; Jansen, M.F.; Eerenberg, E.S.; Beek, A.M.; Marques, K.M.; van de Ven, P.M.; Garrelds, I.M.; Danser, A.H.; et al. Changes in Coronary Blood Flow After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights from a Patient Study and an Experimental Porcine Model. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016, 9, 602–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Teunissen, P.F.; Timmer, S.A.; Danad, I.; de Waard, G.A.; van de Ven, P.M.; Raijmakers, P.G.; Lammertsma, A.A.; Van Rossum, A.C.; van Royen, N.; Knaapen, P. Coronary vasomotor function in infarcted and remote myocardium after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart 2015, 101, 1577–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Thim, T.; van der Hoeven, N.W.; Musto, C.; Nijveldt, R.; Götberg, M.; Engstrøm, T.; Smits, P.C.; Oldroyd, K.G.; Gershlick, A.H.; Escaned, J.; et al. Evaluation and Management of Nonculprit Lesions in STEMI. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2020, 13, 1145–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ntalianis, A.; Sels, J.W.; Davidavicius, G.; Tanaka, N.; Muller, O.; Trana, C.; Barbato, E.; Hamilos, M.; Mangiacapra, F.; Heyndrickx, G.R.; et al. Fractional flow reserve for the assessment of nonculprit coronary artery stenoses in patients with acute myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2010, 3, 1274–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Van de Hoef, T.P.; Lee, J.M.; Echavarria-Pinto, M.; Koo, B.K.; Matsuo, H.; Patel, M.R.; Davies, J.E.; Escaned, J.; Piek, J.J. Non-hyperaemic coronary pressure measurements to guide coronary interventions. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2020, 17, 629–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Toth, G.G.; Toth, B.; Johnson, N.P.; De Vroey, F.; Di Serafino, L.; Pyxaras, S.; Rusinaru, D.; Di Gioia, G.; Pellicano, M.; Barbato, E.; et al. Revascularization decisions in patients with stable angina and intermediate lesions: Results of the international survey on interventional strategy. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2014, 7, 751–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Toth, G.G.; Johnson, N.P.; Wijns, W.; Toth, B.; Achim, A.; Fournier, S.; Barbato, E. Revascularization decisions in patients with chronic coronary syndromes: Results of the second International Survey on Interventional Strategy (ISIS-2). Int. J. Cardiol. 2021, 336, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Fearon, W.F.; Zimmermann, F.M.; De Bruyne, B.; Piroth, Z.; van Straten, A.H.M.; Szekely, L.; Davidavičius, G.; Kalinauskas, G.; Mansour, S.; Kharbanda, R.; et al. Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided PCI as Compared with Coronary Bypass Surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 386, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Achim, A.; Leibundgut, G. FAME 3 fails to defame coronary artery bypass grafting: What went wrong in the percutaneous coronary intervention arm? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2022, 62, ezac036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lee, J.M.; Kim, H.K.; Park, K.H.; Choo, E.H.; Kim, C.J.; Lee, S.H.; Kim, M.C.; Hong, Y.J.; Ahn, S.G.; Doh, J.H.; et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography-guided strategy in acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: A randomized trial. Eur. Heart J. 2023, 44, 473–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Virmani, R.; Burke, A.P.; Farb, A.; Kolodgie, F.D. Pathology of the vulnerable plaque. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2006, 47, C13–C18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Sinclair, H.; Bourantas, C.; Bagnall, A.; Mintz, G.S.; Kunadian, V. OCT for the identification of vulnerable plaque in acute coronary syndrome. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2015, 8, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Yuki, H.; Kinoshita, D.; Suzuki, K.; Niida, T.; Nakajima, A.; Seegers, L.M.; Vergallo, R.; Fracassi, F.; Russo, M.; Di Vito, L.; et al. Layered plaque and plaque volume in patients with acute coronary syndromes. J. Thromb. Thrombolysis 2023, 55, 432–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Erlinge, D.; Maehara, A.; Ben-Yehuda, O.; Bøtker, H.E.; Maeng, M.; Kjøller-Hansen, L.; Engstrøm, T.; Matsumura, M.; Crowley, A.; Dressler, O.; et al. Identification of vulnerable plaques and patients by intracoronary near-infrared spectroscopy and ultrasound (PROSPECT II): A prospective natural history study. Lancet 2021, 397, 985–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Huang, D.; Swanson, E.A.; Lin, C.P.; Schuman, J.S.; Stinson, W.G.; Chang, W.; Hee, M.R.; Flotte, T.; Gregory, K.; Puliafito, C.A.; et al. Optical coherence tomography. Science 1991, 254, 1178–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Di Vito, L.; Agozzino, M.; Marco, V.; Ricciardi, A.; Concardi, M.; Romagnoli, E.; Gatto, L.; Calogero, G.; Tavazzi, L.; Arbustini, E.; et al. Identification and quantification of macrophage presence in coronary atherosclerotic plaques by optical coherence tomography. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2015, 16, 807–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kume, T.; Okura, H.; Yamada, R.; Koyama, T.; Fukuhara, K.; Kawamura, A.; Imai, K.; Neishi, Y.; Uemura, S. Detection of Plaque Neovascularization by Optical Coherence Tomography: Ex Vivo Feasibility Study and In Vivo Observation in Patients With Angina Pectoris. J. Invasive Cardiol. 2016, 28, 17–22. [Google Scholar]
  52. Prati, F.; Romagnoli, E.; Gatto, L.; La Manna, A.; Burzotta, F.; Ozaki, Y.; Marco, V.; Boi, A.; Fineschi, M.; Fabbiocchi, F.; et al. Relationship between coronary plaque morphology of the left anterior descending artery and 12 months clinical outcome: The CLIMA study. Eur. Heart J. 2020, 41, 383–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Kedhi, E.; Berta, B.; Roleder, T.; Hermanides, R.S.; Fabris, E.; AJJ, I.J.; Kauer, F.; Alfonso, F.; von Birgelen, C.; Escaned, J.; et al. Thin-cap fibroatheroma predicts clinical events in diabetic patients with normal fractional flow reserve: The COMBINE OCT-FFR trial. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 4671–4679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Stone, G.W.; Maehara, A.; Ali, Z.A.; Held, C.; Matsumura, M.; Kjøller-Hansen, L.; Bøtker, H.E.; Maeng, M.; Engstrøm, T.; Wiseth, R.; et al. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Vulnerable Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 76, 2289–2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Räber, L.; Ueki, Y.; Otsuka, T.; Losdat, S.; Häner, J.D.; Lonborg, J.; Fahrni, G.; Iglesias, J.F.; van Geuns, R.J.; Ondracek, A.S.; et al. Effect of Alirocumab Added to High-Intensity Statin Therapy on Coronary Atherosclerosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: The PACMAN-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2022, 327, 1771–1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nicholls, S.J.; Kataoka, Y.; Nissen, S.E.; Prati, F.; Windecker, S.; Puri, R.; Hucko, T.; Aradi, D.; Herrman, J.R.; Hermanides, R.S.; et al. Effect of Evolocumab on Coronary Plaque Phenotype and Burden in Statin-Treated Patients Following Myocardial Infarction. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2022, 15, 1308–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Collet, J.P.; Thiele, H.; Barbato, E.; Barthélémy, O.; Bauersachs, J.; Bhatt, D.L.; Dendale, P.; Dorobantu, M.; Edvardsen, T.; Folliguet, T.; et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 1289–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Knuuti, J.; Wijns, W.; Saraste, A.; Capodanno, D.; Barbato, E.; Funck-Brentano, C.; Prescott, E.; Storey, R.F.; Deaton, C.; Cuisset, T.; et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur. Heart J. 2020, 41, 407–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Taylor, C.A.; Fonte, T.A.; Min, J.K. Computational fluid dynamics applied to cardiac computed tomography for noninvasive quantification of fractional flow reserve: Scientific basis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013, 61, 2233–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Park, J.B.; Choi, G.; Chun, E.J.; Kim, H.J.; Park, J.; Jung, J.H.; Lee, M.H.; Otake, H.; Doh, J.H.; Nam, C.W.; et al. Computational fluid dynamic measures of wall shear stress are related to coronary lesion characteristics. Heart 2016, 102, 1655–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hoffmann, U.; Truong, Q.A.; Schoenfeld, D.A.; Chou, E.T.; Woodard, P.K.; Nagurney, J.T.; Pope, J.H.; Hauser, T.H.; White, C.S.; Weiner, S.G.; et al. Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Litt, H.I.; Gatsonis, C.; Snyder, B.; Singh, H.; Miller, C.D.; Entrikin, D.W.; Leaming, J.M.; Gavin, L.J.; Pacella, C.B.; Hollander, J.E. CT angiography for safe discharge of patients with possible acute coronary syndromes. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 366, 1393–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Linde, J.J.; Kelbæk, H.; Hansen, T.F.; Sigvardsen, P.E.; Torp-Pedersen, C.; Bech, J.; Heitmann, M.; Nielsen, O.W.; Høfsten, D.; Kühl, J.T.; et al. Coronary CT Angiography in Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 75, 453–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Montone, R.A.; Niccoli, G.; Crea, F.; Jang, I.K. Management of non-culprit coronary plaques in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Eur. Heart J. 2020, 41, 3579–3586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Kolossváry, M.; Szilveszter, B.; Merkely, B.; Maurovich-Horvat, P. Plaque imaging with CT-a comprehensive review on coronary CT angiography based risk assessment. Cardiovasc. Diagn. Ther. 2017, 7, 489–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Conte, E.; Annoni, A.; Pontone, G.; Mushtaq, S.; Guglielmo, M.; Baggiano, A.; Volpato, V.; Agalbato, C.; Bonomi, A.; Veglia, F.; et al. Evaluation of coronary plaque characteristics with coronary computed tomography angiography in patients with non-obstructive coronary artery disease: A long-term follow-up study. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2017, 18, 1170–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Otsuka, K.; Fukuda, S.; Tanaka, A.; Nakanishi, K.; Taguchi, H.; Yoshikawa, J.; Shimada, K.; Yoshiyama, M. Napkin-ring sign on coronary CT angiography for the prediction of acute coronary syndrome. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2013, 6, 448–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Kröner, E.S.; van Velzen, J.E.; Boogers, M.J.; Siebelink, H.M.; Schalij, M.J.; Kroft, L.J.; de Roos, A.; van der Wall, E.E.; Jukema, J.W.; Reiber, J.H.; et al. Positive remodeling on coronary computed tomography as a marker for plaque vulnerability on virtual histology intravascular ultrasound. Am. J. Cardiol. 2011, 107, 1725–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ferencik, M.; Mayrhofer, T.; Bittner, D.O.; Emami, H.; Puchner, S.B.; Lu, M.T.; Meyersohn, N.M.; Ivanov, A.V.; Adami, E.C.; Patel, M.R.; et al. Use of High-Risk Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque Detection for Risk Stratification of Patients with Stable Chest Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the PROMISE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2018, 3, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Williams, M.C.; Moss, A.J.; Dweck, M.; Adamson, P.D.; Alam, S.; Hunter, A.; Shah, A.S.V.; Pawade, T.; Weir-McCall, J.R.; Roditi, G.; et al. Coronary Artery Plaque Characteristics Associated with Adverse Outcomes in the SCOT-HEART Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 73, 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lee, J.M.; Choi, G.; Koo, B.K.; Hwang, D.; Park, J.; Zhang, J.; Kim, K.J.; Tong, Y.; Kim, H.J.; Grady, L.; et al. Identification of High-Risk Plaques Destined to Cause Acute Coronary Syndrome Using Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography and Computational Fluid Dynamics. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2019, 12, 1032–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. De Bruyne, B.; Fearon, W.F.; Pijls, N.H.; Barbato, E.; Tonino, P.; Piroth, Z.; Jagic, N.; Mobius-Winckler, S.; Rioufol, G.; Witt, N.; et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 1208–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Fairbairn, T.A.; Nieman, K.; Akasaka, T.; Nørgaard, B.L.; Berman, D.S.; Raff, G.; Hurwitz-Koweek, L.M.; Pontone, G.; Kawasaki, T.; Sand, N.P.; et al. Real-world clinical utility and impact on clinical decision-making of coronary computed tomography angiography-derived fractional flow reserve: Lessons from the ADVANCE Registry. Eur. Heart J. 2018, 39, 3701–3711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Leipsic, J.; Yang, T.H.; Thompson, A.; Koo, B.K.; Mancini, G.B.; Taylor, C.; Budoff, M.J.; Park, H.B.; Berman, D.S.; Min, J.K. CT angiography (CTA) and diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve: Results from the Determination of Fractional Flow Reserve by Anatomic CTA (DeFACTO) study. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014, 202, 989–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Gaur, S.; Taylor, C.A.; Jensen, J.M.; Bøtker, H.E.; Christiansen, E.H.; Kaltoft, A.K.; Holm, N.R.; Leipsic, J.; Zarins, C.K.; Achenbach, S.; et al. FFR Derived from Coronary CT Angiography in Nonculprit Lesions of Patients With Recent STEMI. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2017, 10, 424–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Tesic, M.; Djordjevic-Dikic, A.; Giga, V.; Stepanovic, J.; Dobric, M.; Jovanovic, I.; Petrovic, M.; Mehmedbegovic, Z.; Milasinovic, D.; Dedovic, V.; et al. Prognostic Value of Transthoracic Doppler Echocardiography Coronary Flow Velocity Reserve in Patients with Nonculprit Stenosis of Intermediate Severity Early after Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2018, 31, 880–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ismail, T.F.; Strugnell, W.; Coletti, C.; Božić-Iven, M.; Weingärtner, S.; Hammernik, K.; Correia, T.; Küstner, T. Cardiac MR: From Theory to Practice. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 9, 826283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Patel, A.R.; Salerno, M.; Kwong, R.Y.; Singh, A.; Heydari, B.; Kramer, C.M. Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2021, 78, 1655–1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Everaars, H.; van der Hoeven, N.W.; Janssens, G.N.; van Leeuwen, M.A.; van Loon, R.B.; Schumacher, S.P.; Demirkiran, A.; Hofman, M.B.M.; van der Geest, R.J.; van de Ven, P.M.; et al. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Evaluating Nonculprit Lesions After Myocardial Infarction: Comparison with Fractional Flow Reserve. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2020, 13, 715–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mejía-Rentería, H.; Lauri, F.M.; Lee, J.M.; McInerney, A.; van der Hoeven, N.W.; de Waard, G.A.; Fernández-Ortiz, A.; Macaya, C.; Knaapen, P.; van Royen, N.; et al. Interindividual Variations in the Adenosine-Induced Hemodynamics During Fractional Flow Reserve Evaluation: Implications for the Use of Quantitative Flow Ratio in Assessing Intermediate Coronary Stenoses. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2019, 8, e012906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Karthikeyan, G.; Peix, A.; Devasenapathy, N.; Jimenez-Heffernan, A.; Haque, S.U.; Rodella, C.; Giubbini, R.; Rosas, E.A.; Ozkan, E.; Keng, Y.J.F.; et al. Ischemia-guided vs routine non-culprit vessel angioplasty for patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and multi-vessel disease: The IAEA SPECT STEMI trial. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 2023, 30, 1091–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Ong, P.; Martínez Pereyra, V.; Sechtem, U.; Bekeredjian, R. Management of patients with ST-segment myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: What are the options in 2022? Coron. Artery Dis. 2022, 33, 485–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 12 04550 g001 550
Figure 1. Focuses on the management provided by the main studies regarding management of multi-vessel disease in ACS.
Figure 1. Focuses on the management provided by the main studies regarding management of multi-vessel disease in ACS.
Jcm 12 04550 g001
Jcm 12 04550 g002 550
Figure 2. Panel (A,B); OCT images showing non-culprit lesion with plaque vulnerability characteristics: thin cap fibroatheroma, macrophage present in the fibrous cap, and high lipid core burden (white arrows).
Figure 2. Panel (A,B); OCT images showing non-culprit lesion with plaque vulnerability characteristics: thin cap fibroatheroma, macrophage present in the fibrous cap, and high lipid core burden (white arrows).
Jcm 12 04550 g002
Jcm 12 04550 g003 550
Figure 3. Panel (A,B); OCT images showing non-culprit lesion with necrotic lipid core (white arrows).
Figure 3. Panel (A,B); OCT images showing non-culprit lesion with necrotic lipid core (white arrows).
Jcm 12 04550 g003
Jcm 12 04550 g004 550
Figure 4. Operational algorithm for the management of multivessel disease in patients with acute coronary syndrome without cardiogenic shock. ACS, acute coronary syndrome; AKI, acute kidney injury; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; EF, ejection fraction; FFR, fractional flow reserve; MLA, minimal lumen area; MSA, minimal stent area; NCLs, non-culprit lesions; NIRS, near infrared spectroscopy; OCT, optical coherence tomography; OMT, optimal medical therapy; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; TCFA, thin cap fibro-atheroma.
Figure 4. Operational algorithm for the management of multivessel disease in patients with acute coronary syndrome without cardiogenic shock. ACS, acute coronary syndrome; AKI, acute kidney injury; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; EF, ejection fraction; FFR, fractional flow reserve; MLA, minimal lumen area; MSA, minimal stent area; NCLs, non-culprit lesions; NIRS, near infrared spectroscopy; OCT, optical coherence tomography; OMT, optimal medical therapy; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; TCFA, thin cap fibro-atheroma.
Jcm 12 04550 g004
Table
Table 1. Clinical trials comparing culprit-only vs. complete revascularization in STEMI.
Table 1. Clinical trials comparing culprit-only vs. complete revascularization in STEMI.
Study, YearRegistration NumberPopulationTiming of Non-Culprit Lesion PCIPrimary OutcomesFindings
PRAMI, 2013ISRCTN73028481234 pts undergoing CR vs. 231 pts receiving C-OR
n = 465		Index procedureMACE: CV death,
non-fatal MI, refractory angina at 23 months FU.		Preventive MV PCI NCL reduced the risk of adverse CV events
(9% vs. 23%, HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21–0.58, p = 0.001)
CvULPRIT, 2015ISRCTN70913605150 pts undergoing CR vs. 146 pts receiving C-OR
n = 296		Index procedure or index admission (staged)MACE: Death, MI, any repeat revascularization, HF at 12 months FU.MV PCI reduced the rate of adverse CV events
(10.0% vs. 21.2%, HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24–0.84, p = 0.009)
DANAMI-3 PRIMULTI, 2015NCT01960933314 pts undergoing CR vs. 313 pts receiving C-OR
n = 627		Index admission (staged)MACE: Death, re-infarction, IDR at 27 months FU.MV FFR-guided PCI reduced the rate of adverse CV events
(13% vs. 22%, HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38–0.83, p = 0.004).
COMPARE-ACUTE, 2017NCT01399736295 pts undergoing CR vs. 590 pts receiving C-OR
n = 885		Index procedure or index admission (staged)MACE: Death, non-fatal MI, revascularization, cerebrovascular events at 12 months FU.MV FFR-guided PCI reduced the rate of adverse CV events
(8% vs. 21%, HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22–0.55, p < 0.001).
COMPLETE, 2019NCT017404792016 pts undergoing CR vs. 2025 pts receiving C-OR
n = 4041		Index admission (staged) or post-discharge1. Composite of CV death and MI.

2. Composite of CV death, MI, and IDR at 36 months FU		1. MV PCI reduced the risk of CV death or MI
(7.8% vs. 10.5%, HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60–0.91, p = 0.004).

2. MV PCI reduced the risk of CV death, MI, and ischemia driven revascularization
(8.9% vs. 16.7%, HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.53–0.61, p < 0.001).
C-OR, culprit-only revascularization; CR, complete revascularization; CV, cardiovascular; FFR, fractional flow reserve; FU, follow-up; HF, heart failure; IDR, ischemia-driven revascularization; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; MI, myocardial infarction; MV, multivessel; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; Pts, patients.
Table
Table 2. Comparison between OCT and IVUS with specification of the characteristics and potential of each method.
Table 2. Comparison between OCT and IVUS with specification of the characteristics and potential of each method.
SkillsOCTIVUS
Assess left main lesion severity ++
Identify culprit lesion+++
Identify vulnerable plaque+
Evaluate calcium burden+++
Optimize stent implantation+++
Assess risk of distal embolization after PCI++
Evaulate stent failure+++
Reduce contrast ++
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bellino, M.; Silverio, A.; Esposito, L.; Cancro, F.P.; Ferruzzi, G.J.; Di Maio, M.; Rispoli, A.; Vassallo, M.G.; Di Muro, F.M.; Galasso, G.; et al. Moving toward Precision Medicine in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Multimodal Assessment of Non-Culprit Lesions. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 4550. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12134550

AMA Style

Bellino M, Silverio A, Esposito L, Cancro FP, Ferruzzi GJ, Di Maio M, Rispoli A, Vassallo MG, Di Muro FM, Galasso G, et al. Moving toward Precision Medicine in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Multimodal Assessment of Non-Culprit Lesions. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(13):4550. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12134550

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bellino, Michele, Angelo Silverio, Luca Esposito, Francesco Paolo Cancro, Germano Junior Ferruzzi, Marco Di Maio, Antonella Rispoli, Maria Giovanna Vassallo, Francesca Maria Di Muro, Gennaro Galasso, and et al. 2023. "Moving toward Precision Medicine in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Multimodal Assessment of Non-Culprit Lesions" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 13: 4550. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12134550

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop