Why the study?
Does physiologically guided non-culprit PCI show an incremental benefit over angiographically guided non-culprit PCI in patients with multi-vessel ST-elevation myocardial infarction?
Does physiologically guided non-culprit PCI show an incremental benefit over angiographically guided non-culprit PCI in patients with multi-vessel ST-elevation myocardial infarction?
This editorial examines the FLOWER-MI trial to discuss whether physiologically guided non-culprit PCI offers benefits over angiographically guided PCI in multi-vessel STEMI.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wa et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: