Immediate versus staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularisation is supported by recent trials in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) without cardiogenic shock. However, the optimal timing of non-culprit lesion revascularisation is currently debated. AIMS: This prespecified analysis of the BioVasc trial aims to determine the effect of immediate complete revascularisation (ICR) compared to staged complete revascularisation (SCR) on clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI. METHODS: Patients presenting with STEMI and MVD were randomly assigned to ICR or SCR. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation, or cerebrovascular events at 1-year post-index procedure. RESULTS: Between June 2018 and October 2021, 608 (ICR: 305, SCR: 303) STEMI patients were enrolled. No significant differences between ICR and SCR were observed at 1-year follow-up in terms of the primary endpoint (7.0% vs 8.3%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47-1.50; p=0.55): all-cause mortality (2.3% vs 1.3%, HR 1.77, 95% CI: 0.52-6.04; p=0.36), myocardial infarction (1.7% vs 3.3%, HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.17-1.47; p=0.21), unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation (4.1% vs 5.0%, HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.38-1.71; p=0.57) and cerebrovascular events (1.4% vs 1.3%, HR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.25-4.03; p=0.99). At 30-day follow-up, a trend towards a reduction of the primary endpoint in the ICR group was observed (ICR: 3.0% vs SCR: 6.0%, HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.22-1.11; p=0.09). ICR was associated with a reduction in overall hospital stay (ICR: median 3 [interquartile range {IQR} 2-5] days vs SCR: median 4 [IQR 3-6] days; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes at 1 year were similar for STEMI patients who had undergone ICR and those who had undergone SCR.

Timing of Complete Revascularization Stratified by Index Presentation During On- and Off-Hours.

Recent trials suggested immediate complete revascularization (ICR) as a safe alternative to staged complete revascularization (SCR), but the impact of the respective percutaneous coronary intervention strategies between on- versus off-hours is unclear. On-hours was defined as an index revascularization performed between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, or else the procedure was defined as performed during off-hours. The primary end point consisted of a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular events at 1-year follow-up. We used Cox regression models to relate randomized treatment with study end points. We evaluated multiplicative and additive interactions between on- versus off-hours and randomized treatment. The BIOVASC (Percutaneous Complete Revascularization Strategies Using Sirolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Coated Stents in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease) trial enrolled 1,097 and 428 patients during on- and off-hours, respectively. Patients randomized during off-hours were more likely to present with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (66.4% vs 29.5%, p <0.001). The composite primary outcome occurred in 8.4% and 10.1% of patients randomized to ICR and SCR, respectively, during on-hours (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.19). During off-hours, the primary composite outcome occurred in 5.4% and 7.7% in ICR and SCR (0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 1.46) with no evidence of a differential effect (interaction pmultiplicative = 0.70, padditive = 0.56). No differential effect was found between treatment allocation and on- versus off-hours in any of the secondary outcomes. In conclusion, no differential treatment effect was found when comparing ICR versus SCR in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease during on- or off-hours.

Immediate or staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome by number of diseased vessels: a substudy of the BIOVASC randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the number of diseased vessels may affect the efficacy of a complete revascularisation strategy. AIMS: The authors sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of immediate complete revascularisation (ICR) and staged complete revascularisation (SCR) in patients presenting with ACS stratified by the number of diseased vessels. METHODS: In this prespecified analysis of the BIOVASC trial, ICR was compared with SCR in patients with two-vessel disease (2VD) or three-vessel disease (3VD). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), any unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation or cerebrovascular events at 1 year after the index procedure. Comparisons were performed using Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 1,525 patients were enrolled in the BIOVASC trial, of whom 1,177 presented with 2VD and 265 with 3VD. In the 2VD group, 613 patients were assigned to ICR and 564 to SCR. In the 3VD group, 117 patients were assigned to ICR and 148 to SCR. ICR and SCR led to similar results in both the 2VD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-1.13; p=0.18) and 3VD groups (HR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.39-1.59; p=0.51) (pinteraction=0.91) in terms of the primary endpoint. ICR was associated with a lower rate of MI in patients with 3VD (HR 0.21, 95% CI: 0.046-0.93; p=0.04) (pinteraction=0.30). CONCLUSIONS: ICR might be an option in patients presenting with extensive 3VD and might be associated with a lower rate of myocardial infarction compared with SCR.

Timing of Complete Multivessel Revascularization in Patients Presenting With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization of the culprit and all significant nonculprit lesions in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD) reduces major adverse cardiac events, but optimal timing of revascularization remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and MVD. METHODS: This prespecified substudy of the BIOVASC (Percutaneous Complete Revascularization Strategies Using Sirolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Coated Stents in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease) trial included patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD. Risk differences of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (UIDR), or cerebrovascular events and its individual components were compared between ICR and SCR at 1 year. RESULTS: The BIOVASC trial enrolled 1,525 patients; 917 patients presented with NSTE-ACS, of whom 459 were allocated to ICR and 458 to SCR. Incidences of the primary composite outcome were similar in the 2 groups (7.9% vs 10.1%; risk difference 2.2%; 95% CI: -1.5 to 6.0; P = 0.15). ICR was associated with a significant reduction of MIs (2.0% vs 5.3%; risk difference 3.3%; 95% CI: 0.9 to 5.7; P = 0.006), which was maintained after exclusion of procedure-related MIs occurring during the index or staged procedure (2.0% vs 4.4%; risk difference 2.4%; 95% CI: 0.1 to 4.7; P = 0.032). UIDRs were also reduced in the ICR group (4.2% vs 7.8%; risk difference 3.5%; 95% CI: 0.4 to 6.6; P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: ICR is safe in patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD and was associated with a reduction in MIs and UIDRs at 1 year.

Acute Isolated Right Ventricular Infarction.

The electrocardiogram is universally used to diagnose ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and serves as guidance for the interventional cardiologist to identify the acute thrombotic lesion. However, this case illustrates that the electrocardiogram can also be deceiving.