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 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.

Prehospital crushed versus integral prasugrel loading dose in STEMI patients with a large myocardial area.

BACKGROUND: The effect of administering a crushed prasugrel loading dose is uncertain in patients presenting with a large myocardial infarction and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate if patients with a large myocardial infarction may benefit from prehospital administration of a crushed prasugrel loading dose. METHODS: Patients from the CompareCrush trial with an available ambulance electrocardiography (ECG) were included in the study. An independent core laboratory confirmed a prehospital large myocardial area. We compared pre- and postprocedural angiographic markers, including Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in the infarct-related artery, high thrombus burden, and myocardial blush grade 3, in STEMI patients with and without a prehospital large myocardial area. RESULTS: Ambulance ECG was available for 532 patients, of whom 331 patients were identified with a prehospital large myocardial area at risk. Crushed prasugrel significantly improved postprocedural TIMI 3 flow rates in STEMI patients with a prehospital large myocardial area at risk (92% vs 79%, odds ratio [OR] 3.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50-6.00) but not in STEMI patients without a prehospital large myocardial area at risk (91% vs 95%, OR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.14-1.57; pinteraction=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of crushed prasugrel may improve postprocedural TIMI 3 flow in STEMI patients with signs of a large myocardial area at risk on the ambulance ECG. The practice of crushing tablets of prasugrel loading dose might, therefore, represent a safe, fast and cost-effective strategy to improve myocardial reperfusion in this high-risk STEMI subgroup undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

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.

Benefits of immediate complete revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Acute coronary syndrome is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Up to 60% of patients present with additional significant non-culprit lesions. Complete revascularization (CR) of all (culprit and non-culprit) lesions is recommended and recent randomized trials showed the benefit of performing complete multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in a single setting. Immediate CR is associated with a reduced risk of repeat myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia driven revascularization. Furthermore, immediate CR resulted in less implanted stents, total contrast use and a shorter duration of hospitalization while maintaining a similar success rate of complete revascularization. Further studies need to evaluate the role of coronary physiology and intravascular imaging for enhanced understanding of the pathophysiology of early events in non-culprit lesions.

Complete Revascularization Strategies in Women and Men With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease.

This prespecified substudy of the randomized Percutaneous Complete Revascularization Strategies Using Sirolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Coated Stents in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease (BIOVASC) trial aimed to compare immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, stratified by gender. 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. The secondary end points included the individual components of the primary composite and major bleedings. We used Cox regression models to relate randomized treatment with study end points. We evaluated the multiplicative and additive interactions between gender and randomized treatment. The BIOVASC trial enrolled 338 women and 1,187 men. Women were older than men (median age 71.6 vs 63.7 years, p <0.001) and had a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10.1% vs 5.6%, p = 0.003), renal insufficiency (7.7% vs 4.4%, p = 0.015), and hypertension (60.4% vs 51.7%, p = 0.005). In women, the composite primary outcome occurred in 7.3% versus 12.9% (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 1.08) in patients randomly allocated to ICR and SCR, respectively, and in men in 7.7% versus 8.4% (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.34), with no evidence of a differential effect (interaction pmultiplicative = 0.20, padditive = 0.87). No evidence of heterogeneity between women and men was found when comparing ICR with SCR in terms of the secondary outcomes. In conclusion, no differential treatment effect was found when comparing ICR versus SCR in women or men presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease.

Propensity Matched Comparison of Clinical Outcome After Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease.

Complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD) improves clinical outcomes compared with culprit-only revascularization, but the optimal timing for non-culprit lesions treatment remains unclear. This study evaluated patients presenting with ACS and MVD admitted between January 2015 and September 2021 at the Erasmus University Medical Center. Clinical outcomes were compared between immediate and staged CR in terms of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and any unplanned revascularization. A total of 1,400 patients presenting with ACS and MVD who underwent immediate or staged CR were included in this study. Using 1/many propensity score matching without replacement, 299 patients in the staged CR group were matched to 598 patients in the immediate CR group (mean 1:2 ratio), rendering a total of 897 patients for analysis. The median follow-up period was 648 days. MACCE rate was significantly higher in the staged CR group than in the immediate CR group (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.60 [1.05 to 2.45], p = 0.03). Furthermore, number of stents, stent length, and contrast usage were significantly greater in the staged revascularization group. Immediate CR was associated with less risk of MACCE than was staged CR. Staged CR required overall more contrast and stent material.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Non-ST-Elevation Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

There is lack of evidence regarding the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the clinical impact of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with that of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in this subset of patients. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Knowledge were searched for studies including patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD who underwent PCI or CABG up to September 1, 2021. The primary end point of the meta-analysis was all-cause mortality at 1 year. The secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or repeat revascularization at 1 year. The analysis was conducted using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Four prospective observational studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1,542 patients who underwent CABG and 1,630 patients who underwent PCI. No significant differences were found in terms of all-cause mortality (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21, p = 0.51), MI (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.51, p = 0.46), or stroke (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.35, p = 0.42) between PCI and CABG. Repeat revascularization was significantly lower in the CABG group (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.34, p <0.00001). In patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and MVD, 1-year mortality, MI, and stroke were similar between patients treated with either PCI or CABG, but the repeat revascularization rate was higher after PCI.

Immediate versus staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease (BIOVASC): a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease, complete revascularisation by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with improved clinical outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PCI for non-culprit lesions should be attempted during the index procedure or staged. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial was done at 29 hospitals across Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. We included patients aged 18-85 years presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel (ie, two or more coronary arteries with a diameter of 2·5 mm or more and ≥70% stenosis based on visual estimation or positive coronary physiology testing) coronary artery disease with a clearly identifiable culprit lesion. A web-based randomisation module was used to randomly assign patients (1:1), with a random block size of four to eight, stratified by study centre, to undergo immediate complete revascularisation (PCI of the culprit lesion first, followed by other non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator during the index procedure) or staged complete revascularisation (PCI of only the culprit lesion during the index procedure and PCI of all non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator within 6 weeks after the index procedure). The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation, or cerebrovascular events at 1 year after the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation at 1 year after the index procedure. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat. Non-inferiority of immediate to staged complete revascularisation was considered to be met if the upper boundary of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not exceed 1·39. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03621501. FINDINGS: Between June 26, 2018, and Oct 21, 2021, 764 patients (median age 65·7 years [IQR 57·2-72·9] and 598 [78·3%] males) were randomly assigned to the immediate complete revascularisation group and 761 patients (median age 65·3 years [58·6-72·9] and 589 [77·4%] males) were randomly assigned to the staged complete revascularisation group, and were included in the intention-to-treat population. The primary outcome at 1 year occurred in 57 (7·6%) of 764 patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 71 (9·4%) of 761 patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·55-1·11, pnon-inferiority=0·0011). There was no difference in all-cause death between the immediate and staged complete revascularisation groups (14 [1·9%] vs nine [1·2%]; HR 1·56, 95% CI 0·68-3·61, p=0·30). Myocardial infarction occurred in 14 (1·9%) patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 34 (4·5%) patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·76, p=0·0045). More unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisations were performed in the staged complete revascularisation group than in the immediate complete revascularisation group (50 [6·7%] patients vs 31 [4·2%] patients; HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·39-0·95, p=0·030). INTERPRETATION: In patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, immediate complete revascularisation was non-inferior to staged complete revascularisation for the primary composite outcome and was associated with a reduction in myocardial infarction and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation. FUNDING: Erasmus University Medical Center and Biotronik.