Very early invasive strategy in higher risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RAPID NSTEMI trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a very early invasive strategy (IS)±revascularisation improves clinical outcomes compared with standard care IS in higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: Multicentre, randomised, controlled, pragmatic strategy trial of higher risk patients with NSTE-ACS, defined by Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events 2.0 score of ≥118, or ≥90 with at least one additional high-risk feature. Participants were randomly assigned to very early IS±revascularisation (<90 min from randomisation) or standard care IS±revascularisation (<72 hours). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, new myocardial infarction or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months. RESULTS: The trial was discontinued early by the funder due to slow recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic. 425 patients were randomised, of whom 413 underwent an IS: 204 to very early IS (median time from randomisation: 1.5 hours (IQR: 0.9-2.0)) and 209 to standard care IS (median: 44.0 hours (IQR: 22.9-72.6)). At 12 months, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the early IS (5.9%) and standard IS (6.7%) groups (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.09; p=0.86). The incidence of stroke and major bleeding was similar. The length of hospital stay was reduced with a very early IS (3.9 days (SD 6.5) vs 6.3 days (SD 7.6), p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of very early IS did not improve clinical outcomes compared with a standard care IS in higher risk patients with NSTE-ACS. However, the primary outcome rate was low and the trial was underpowered to detect such a difference. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03707314.

Complex percutaneous coronary intervention in patients unable to undergo coronary artery bypass grafting during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from the UK-ReVasc Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac surgery for coronary artery disease was dramatically reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many patients with disease ordinarily treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) instead underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to describe 12-month outcomes following PCI in patients who would typically have undergone CABG. METHODS: Between March 1 and July 31, 2020, patients who received revascularization with PCI when CABG would have been the primary choice of revascularization were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter UK-ReVasc Registry. We evaluated the following major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months: all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, major bleeding, and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 215 patients were enrolled across 45 PCI centers in the United Kingdom. Twelve-month follow up data were obtained for 97% of the cases. There were 9 deaths (4.3%), 5 myocardial infarctions (2.4%), 12 repeat revascularizations (5.7%), 1 stroke (0.5%), 3 major bleeds (1.4%), and no cases of stent thrombosis. No difference in the primary endpoint was observed between patients who received complete vs incomplete revascularization (residual SYNTAX score £ 8 vs > 8) (P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with patterns of coronary disease in whom CABG would have been the primary therapeutic choice outside of the pandemic, PCI was associated with acceptable outcomes at 12 months of follow-up. Contemporary randomized trials that compare PCI to CABG in such patient cohorts may be warranted.