Percutaneous coronary intervention has transformed the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) due to a reduction in early mortality and need for repeat revascularization. However, the conventional revascularization strategy, combined with state-of-the-art anti-thrombotic and antiplatelet therapies, can still be associated with poor clinical outcome in some patients, because of reperfusion injury and microvascular obstruction contributing to the infarct size. To address this important therapeutic need, a broad-range of device-based treatments have been introduced. This is an overview of the pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion (PiCSO) device (Miracor Medical SA) which has been proposed for STEMI patients. PiCSO therapy could lead to an improved perfusion, decrease microvascular dysfunction, and thus potentially reduce infarct size.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomized trials. Lancet 361(9351), 13–20 (2003).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Prasad A, Stone GW, Aymong E et al. CADILLAC trial. Impact of ST-segment resolution after primary angioplasty on outcomes after myocardial infarction in elderly patients: an analysis from the CADILLAC trial. Am. Heart J. 147(4), 669–675 (2004).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Gibson CM, Cannon CP, Murphy SA et al. Relationship of TIMI myocardial perfusion grade to mortality after administration of thrombolytic drugs. Circulation 101(2), 125–130 (2000).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Van Kranenburg M, Magro M, Thiele H et al. Prognostic value of microvascular obstruction and infarct size, as measured by CMR in STEMI patients. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 7(9), 930–939 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Waha SD, Patel M, Granger CB et al. Relationship between microvascular obstruction and adverse events following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: an individual patient data pooled analysis from seven randomized trials. Eur. Heart J. 38(47), 3502–3510 (2017). • This study showed the extent of microvascular obstruction (MVO) measured by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is associated with mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization at 1 year.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Xie F, Qian L, Goldsweig A, Xu D, Porter TR. Event-free survival following successful percutaneous intervention in acute myocardial infarction depends on microvascular perfusion. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 13(6), e010091 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Jenča D, Melenovský V, Stehlik J et al. Heart failure after myocardial infarction: incidence and predictors. ESC. Heart Fail. 8(1), 222–237 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Menees DS, Peterson ED, Wang Y et al. Door-to-balloon time and mortality among patients undergoing primary PCI. NEJM 369(10), 901–909 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Maznyczka AM, Oldroyd KG, McCartney P, McEntegart M, Berry C. The potential use of the index of microcirculatory resistance to guide stratification of patients for adjunctive therapy in acute myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 12(10), 951–966 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. De Maria GL, Garcia-Garcia HM, Scarsini R et al. Novel device-based therapies to improve outcome in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eur. Heart J. Acute Cardiovasc. Care 10(6), 687–697 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Alkhouli M, Lurz P, Rodés-Cabau J et al. Transcatheter coronary sinus interventions. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 15(14), 1397–1412 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Kassab GS, Navia JA, March K et al. Coronary venous reperfusion: an old concept, a new approach. J. Appl. Physiol. 104(5), 1266–1272 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Sirajuddin A, Chen MY, White CS, Arai AE. Coronary venous anatomy and anomalies. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 14(1), 80–86 (2022).
Google Scholar
14. Klimek-Piotrowska W, Hołda MK, Koziej M Strona M. Anatomical barriers in the right atrium to thecoronary sinus cannulation. PeerJ 3, e1548 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Gokhroo RK, Bisht DS, Padmanabhan D, Gupta S. Coronary sinus anatomy: Ajmer Working Group Classification. J. Invasive Cardiol. 26(2), 71–74 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16. Pratt FH. The nutrition of the heart through the vessels of Thebesius and the coronary veins. Am. J. Physiol. 1(1), 86–103 (1898).
Google Scholar
17. Beck CS, Stanton E, Batiuchok W et al. Revascularization of heart by graft of systemic artery into coronary sinus. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 137(5), 436–442 (1948).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Gore JM, Weiner BH, Benotti JR et al. Preliminary experience with synchronized coronary sinus retroperfusion in humans. Circulation 74(2), 381–388 (1986).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Incorvati RL, Tauberg SG, Pecora MJ et al. Clinical applications of coronary sinus retroperfusion during high-risk percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 22(1), 127–134 (1993).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Kar S, Drury JK, Hajduczki I et al. Synchronized coronary venous retroperfusion for support and salvage of ischemic myocardium during elective and failed angioplasty. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 18(1), 271–282 (1991).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. Banai S, Ben Muvhar S, Parikh KH et al. Coronary sinus reducer stent for the treatment of chronic refractory angina pectoris: a prospective, open-label, multicenter, safety feasibility first-in-man study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 49(17), 1783–1789 (2007).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Verheye S, Jolicœur EM, Behan MW et al. Efficacy of a device to narrow the coronary sinus in refractory angina. NEJM 372(6), 519–527 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Mohl W, Simon P, Neumann F, Schreiner W, Punzengruber C. Clinical evaluation of pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion: randomized trial during coronary artery surgery. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 46(2), 192–201 (1988).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Mohl W, Gangl C, Jusić A, Aschacher T, De Jonge M, Rattay F. PICSO: from myocardial salvage to tissue regeneration. Cardiovasc. Revasc. Med. 16(1), 36–46 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Mohl W, Kiseleva Z, Jusic A, Bruckner M, Mader RM. Signs and signals limiting myocardial damage using PICSO: a scoping review decoding paradigm shifts toward a new encounter. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 9(10), 1030842 (2023).
Google Scholar
26. Gibson CM, Ajmi I, von Koenig CL, Turco MA, Stone GW. Pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion: a novel approach to improve microvascular flow and reduce infarct size in STEMI. Cardiovasc. Revasc. Med. 28, S1553-8389(22)00678-9 (2022).
Google Scholar
27. Van de Hoef TP, Mohl W, Khattab AA, Wykrzykowska JJ, Piek JJ. Cardioprotected percutaneous coronary intervention - a case study in a stable angina patient. J. Interv. Cardiol. 6(2), 186–189 (2011).
Google Scholar
28. Van de Hoef TP, Nolte F, Delewi R et al. Intracoronary hemodynamic effects of pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion (PICSO): results from the First-In-Man Prepare PICSO Study. J. Interv. Cardiol. 25(6), 549–556 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Van de Hoef TP, Nijveldt R, van der Ent M et al. Pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion (PICSO) in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the Prepare RAMSES safety and feasibility study. EuroIntervention 11(1), 37–44 (2015). •• This study of small group of patients presenting with anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) showed pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion (PiCSO) therapy is safe in the setting of anterior STEMI.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. De Maria GL, Alkhalil M, Borlotti A et al. Index of microcirculatory resistance-guided therapy with pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion improves coronary microvascular function and reduces infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the Oxford Acute Myocardial Infarction - Pressure-controlled Intermittent Coronary Sinus Occlusion study (OxAMI-PICSO study). EuroIntervention 814(3), e352–e359 (2018). •• This was an index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) guided study of PiCSO therapy compared with historic control group which showed reduction in infarct size and IMR in those treated with PiCSO.
Google Scholar
31. Egred M, Bagnall A, Spyridopoulos I et al. Effect of Pressure-controlled intermittent Coronary Sinus Occlusion (PiCSO) on infarct size in anterior STEMI: PiCSO in ACS study. Int. J. Cardiol. Heart Vasc. 28, 100526 (2020). •• This is another study of a small group of patients with anterior STEMI who underwent PiCSO treatment, and assessment of infarct size by myocardial infarction (MI) in PiCSO group.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
32. Scarsini R, Terentes-Printzios D, Shanmuganathan M et al. Oxford Acute Myocardial Infarction (OxAMI) Study. Pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion improves the vasodilatory microvascular capacity and reduces myocardial injury in patients with STEMI. Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv. 99(2), 329–339 (2022). •• This study showed improvement is infarct size and IMR in both anterior and inferior STEMI in small group of patients treated with PiCSO compared with matched control group.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Fearon WF, Low AF, Yong AS et al. Prognostic value of the index of microcirculatory resistance measured after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 127(24), 2436–2441 (2013). • This study demonstrated that an elevated IMR at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is indicative of poor long-term outcomes.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
34. Scarsini R, Shanmuganathan M, Kotronias RA et al. Angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR_angio) as a novel pressure-wire-free tool to assess coronary microvascular dysfunction in acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary artery disease. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 37(6), 1801–1813 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Azzalini L, Montorfano M, Latib A, Colombo A. High-risk left main percutaneous coronary intervention supported by pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion. EuroIntervention 12(11), e1437 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Del Buono MG, Montone RA, Camilli M et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction across the spectrum of cardiovascular diseases: JACC state-of-the-art review. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 78(13), 1352–1371 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Pappalardo F, Ancona MB, Giannini F et al. First in man prolonged pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion to treat refractory left ventricular dysfunction and ischemia with patent epicardial coronary arteries. Int. J. Cardiol. 241, 138–141 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 19, No. 12

Metrics

Downloaded 44 times

History

Received 5 January 2023

Accepted 7 September 2023

Published online 7 November 2023

Published in print September 2023

Information

Keywords

Author contributions

All authors contributed equally to the research, writing and editing of this manuscript.

Financial disclosure & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download