Kollam

Researchers are evaluating two strategies for complete revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), including both ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI), who also have multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). The trial compares physiology-guided revascularization, which uses specific measurements to decide treatment, with angiography-guided revascularization, which relies on imaging. The study aims to determine if the physiology-guided approach is not worse than the angiography-guided method in preventing cardiovascular death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization, and whether it is better at reducing safety issues like bleeding, stroke, or kidney injury. Participants undergo procedures to treat non-culprit lesions (NCLs) using either physiology guidance or angiography guidance. In the physiology-guided group, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is performed on lesions with resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) of 0.89 or less or fractional flow reserve (FFR) of 0.80 or less, according to local practice. The angiography-guided group receives PCI based on imaging assessments following local practice. The study includes an observational imaging sub-study using optical coherence tomography (OCT) for a subset of patients. Participants are involved for a minimum of two years, during which researchers monitor the time to first cardiovascular events such as death, new MI, or additional revascularization, along with safety events like bleeding or stroke. The study includes regular evaluations and follow-up to assess these outcomes, ensuring comprehensive safety and efficacy data collection in this patient population.