Comparison Between FFR Guided Revascularization Versus Conventional Strategy in Acute STEMI Patients With MVD.

Background of the study: At the moment the general opinion is divided over the way the non culprit lesions in patients presenting with STEMI should be treated. While the previous guidelines stead that these lesions should be treated in a second time ( ie not during the primary intervention) the actual guidelines do not touch this argument. The reason is that the studies where the previous guidelines were based are old. Meanwhile small sized randomised trials from EU region have proven favourable outcomes with NON infarct related artery during the primary procedure while registers (non randomised trials) from USA still recommend the staged treatment. For this reason we have decided to perform a randomised study to address this issue incorporating the state of the art diagnosis and treatment, as well as the new medical therapy and PCI techniques.

Objective of the study: FFR-guided complete percutaneous revascularisation of all flow-limiting stenoses in the non-IRA performed within the same procedure as the primary PCI or within the same hospitalisation will improve clinical outcomes compared to the staged revascularisation, guided by prove of ischemia or clinical judgment, as recommended from the guidelines

Study design: Prospective, 1: 2 randomisation. FFR guided revascularisation during primary PCI (1) versus following actual guidelines (2)

Study population: All STEMI patients between 18-85 years who will be treated with primary PCI in < 12 h (more than 12 hr if persisting pain allowed) after the onset of symptoms and have at least one stenosis of >50% in a non-IRA judged feasible for treatment with PCI.

Intervention (if applicable): FFR-guided complete percutaneous revascularisation of all flow-limiting stenoses in the non-IRA performed within the same procedure as the primary PCI or within the same hospitalisation will improve clinical outcomes compared to the staged revascularisation, guided by prove of ischemia or clinical judgment, as recommended from the guidelines

Primary study parameters/outcome of the study: Composite endpoint of all cause mortality non-fatal Myocardial Infarction, any Revascularisation and Stroke (MACCE) at 12 months

Inclusion criteria

• All patients between 18-85 years presenting with STEMI who will be treated with primary PCI in < 12 h after the onset of symptoms* and have at least one stenosis of >50% in a non-IRA on QCA or visual estimation of baseline angiography and judged feasible for treatment with PCI by the operator.

• Patients with symptoms for more than 12 hr but ongoing angina complaints can be randomised

Exclusion criteria

• Left main stem disease (stenosis > 50%)
• STEMI due to in-stent thrombosis
• Chronic total occlusion of a non-IRA
• Severe stenosis with TIMI flow ≤ II of the non-IRA artery.
• Non-IRA stenosis not amenable for PCI treatment (operators decision)
• Complicated IRA treatment, with one or more of the following;

• Extravasation,
• Permanent no re-flow after IRA treatment (TIMI flow 0-1),
• Inability to implant a stent
• Known severe cardiac valve dysfunction that will require surgery in the follow-up period.
• Killip class III or IV already at presentation or at the completion of culprit lesion treatment.
• Life expectancy of < 2 years.
• Intolerance to Aspirin, Clopidogrel, Prasugrel, Ticagrelor, Heparin, Bivaluridin, or Everolimus and known true anaphylaxis to prior contrast media of bleeding diathesis or known coagulopathy.
• Gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding within the prior 3 months,
• Planned elective surgical procedure necessitating interruption of thienopyridines during the first 6 months post enrolment.
• Patients who are actively participating in another drug or device investigational study, which have not completed the primary endpoint follow-up period.
• Pregnancy or planning to become pregnant any time after enrolment into this study.
• Inability to obtain informed consent.
• Expected lost to follow-up.