The impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was confirmed by several studies. However, it is unclear whether this effect is still present in large groups of unselected patients undergoing up-to-date treatment. Thus, we sought to assess the impact of DM on periprocedural outcomes of primary PCI in STEMI using data from the Polish National Registry of PCI. Data on 150,782 STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI were collected. Of them, 26,360 (17.5%) patients had DM. Patients with DM were higher-risk individuals who experienced longer reperfusion delays and were less likely to have closed infarct-related artery at baseline (TIMI 0 + 1 flow: 73.2% vs. 72.0%; p < 0.0001) and achieve optimal reperfusion after PCI (TIMI 3 flow: 91.8% vs. 88.5%; p < 0.0001). The periprocedural mortality (1.1% vs. 1.9%; p < 0.0001) was higher in patients with DM and DM was identified as an independent predictor of periprocedural death. In conclusion, despite continuous progress in STEMI treatment, DM remains a strong predictor of periprocedural mortality. However, this detrimental effect of DM may be partially explained by the overall higher risk profile of diabetic patients.

In the era of potent P2Y12 inhibitors, according to current guidelines, treatment with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) should be limited to bail-out and/or highly thrombotic situations. Similarly, the recommendation for aspiration thrombectomy (AT) is downgraded to very selective use. We examine the prevalence, and predictors of GPI and AT use in STEMI patients referred to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Data on 116,873 consecutive STEMI patients referred to primary PCI in Poland between 2015 and 2020 were analyzed. GPIs were administered in 29.3%, AT was used in 11.6%, and combined treatment with both in 6.1%. There was a mild trend toward a decrease in GPI and AT usage during the analyzed years. On the contrary, there was a rapid growth of the ticagrelor/prasugrel usage rate from 6.5 to 48.1%. Occluded infarct-related artery at baseline and no-reflow during PCI were the strongest predictors of GPI administration (OR 2.3; 95% CI 2.22–2.38 and OR 3.47; 95% CI 3.13–3.84, respectively) and combined usage of GPI and AT (OR 4.4; 95% CI 4.08–4.8 and OR 3.49; 95% CI 3.08–3.95 respectively) in a multivariate logistic regression model. Similarly, the administration of ticagrelor/prasugrel was an independent predictor of both adjunctive treatment strategies. In STEMI patients in Poland, GPIs are selectively used in one in four patients during primary PCI, and the combined usage of GPI and AT is marginal. Despite the rapid growth in potent P2Y12 inhibitors usage in recent years, GPIs are selectively used at a stable rate during PCI in highly thrombotic lesions.

No abstract

Guidelines recommend using hyperemic (FFR) and non-hyperemic (iFR/RFR) methods of evaluating coronary artery stenoses in patients with coronary artery disease. However, in some cases, achieved results indicating significant ischemia may differ between those methods. Thus, we sought to identify predictors of such a discrepancy. Data were collected on all consecutive patients with chronic coronary syndrome hospitalized between 2020 and 2021. For 279 patients (417 vessels), results for both FFR and iFR/RFR were available. Values of ≤0.80 for FFR and ≤0.89 for iFR/RFR were considered positive for ischemia. Discordant measurements of FFR and iFR/RFR were observed in 80 (19.2%) patients. Atrial fibrillation was the only predictor of the overall FFR and iFR/RFR discordance - OR (95%CI) 1.90 (1.02–3.51); p = 0.040. The chance of positive FFR and negative iFR/RFR decreased independently with age - OR (95%CI) 0.96 (0.93–0.99); p = 0.024. On the contrary, insulin-treated diabetes mellitus was the predictor of negative FFR and positive iFR/RFR discrepancy - OR (95%CI) 4.61 (1.38–15.40); p = 0.013. In everyday clinical practice, iFR/FFR correlates well with FFR. However, discordance between these methods is quite common. Physicians should be aware of the risk of such discordance in patients with atrial fibrillation, advanced age, and insulin-treated diabetes mellitus.

Background: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and non-hyperemic resting pressure ratios, such as instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and resting full-cycle ratio (RFR), are recommended for evaluating the significance of angiographically intermediate coronary stenoses. Despite their usefulness, approximately 20% of assessed lesions exhibit discordance between FFR and iFR/RFR. Aims:The role of sex in this discrepancy remains uncertain; thus, we aimed to investigate its impact on the discordance between FFR and iFR/RFR. Methods:We reviewed 417 consecutive intermediate stenotic lesions from 381 patients, stratified by sex and assessed with both FFR and iFR/RFR. FFR ≤0.80 and iFR/RFR ≤0.89 were considered positive for ischemia.Results: Of the 381 patients, 92 (24.1%) were women. Women were older, had a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), higher ejection fraction, and were more likely to have peripheral artery disease than men. Median FFR and iFR/RFR values were lower in men than in women (FFR 0.86 vs. 0.80; P <0.001; iFR 0.92 vs. 0.90; P = 0.049). However, overall discordance prevalence was similar for both sexes (20.6% vs. 15.1%; P = 0.22). In men, eGFR, insulin-treated diabetes mellitus, and arterial hypertension were predictors of positive FFR | negative iFR/RFR discordance, while eGFR, insulin-treated diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were predictors of negative FFR | positive iFR/RFR discordance. No factors associated with either discordance were identified in women.Conclusions: FFR and iFR/RFR results indicating significant ischemia were more common in men than women when assessing intermediate coronary stenoses. Nevertheless, sex did not predict discordant results.

Introduction A recent study suggested that sex discordance between surgeons and patients negatively affects the outcomes of patients undergoing common surgical procedures. Aim We sought to assess whether such an impact exists for periprocedural outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Material and methods From 2014 to 2020, data on 581,744 patients undergoing single-stage coronary angiography and PCI from 154 centers were collected. Patients were divided into four groups based on the patient and operator sex. Operator-patient sex discordance was defined as the procedure done by a male operator on a female patient or by a female operator on a male patient. Results Of 581,744 patients treated by 34 female and 782 male operators, 194,691 patients were sex discordant with their operator (female operator with male patient 12,479; male operator with female patient 182,212) while 387,053 were sex concordant (female operator with female patient 6,068; male operator with male patient 380,985). Among female patients, no difference in the risk of periprocedural complications, including death (0.65% vs. 0.82%; p = 0.10), between patients discordant versus concordant with operators was observed. Among male patients the risk of death (0.55% vs. 0.43%; p = 0.037) and bleeding at the puncture site (0.13% vs. 0.08%; p = 0.046) was higher in patients discordant with operators. However, the differences were no longer significant after adjustment for covariates. Conclusions No detrimental effect of operator-patient sex discordance on periprocedural outcomes was confirmed in all-comer patients undergoing PCI. Some of the observed differences in outcomes were primarily related to the differences in baseline risk profile.