FLOWER-MI and the root of the problem with non-culprit revascularisation

Abstract

How do we reduce cardiac death and myocardial infarction by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in coronary heart disease? Although the interventional community continues to grapple with this question in stable angina, the benefits of PCI for non-culprit lesions found at ST-elevation myocardial infarction are established. Is it then wishful thinking that an index developed in stable coronary disease, for identifying lesions capable of causing ischaemia will show an incremental benefit over angiographically guided non-culprit PCI? This is the question posed by the recently published FLOW Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multi-vessel ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (FLOWER-MI) trial. We examine the trial design and results; ask if there is any relationship between the baseline physiological significance of a non-culprit lesion and vulnerability to future myocardial infarction; and consider if more sophisticated methods can help guide or defer non-culprit revascularisation.

Acute Coronary Syndrome with Non-Obstructive Plaque on Angiography and Features of Vulnerable Plaque on Intracoronary Optical Coherence Tomography

“…In our case, an evaluation with invasive physiology was not considered because it is contraindicated for blood vessels responsible for acute infarction (culprit lesions) due to microcirculation dysfunction and plaque instability. Moreover, several studies have shown that the analysis of physiology invasive therapy is clinically ineffective in this setting [19][20][21][22].…”