Search

Background: The optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome is not well defined. We tested the hypothesis that a strategy of very early ICA and possible revascularization within 12 hours of diagnosis is superior to an invasive strategy performed within 48 to 72 hours in terms of clinical outcomes., Methods: Patients admitted with clinical suspicion of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in the Capital Region of Copenhagen, Denmark, were screened for inclusion in the VERDICT trial (Very Early Versus Deferred Invasive Evaluation Using Computerized Tomography) ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02061891). Patients with ECG changes indicating new ischemia or elevated troponin, in whom ICA was clinically indicated and deemed logistically feasible within 12 hours, were randomized 1:1 to ICA within 12 hours or standard invasive care within 48 to 72 hours. The primary end point was a combination of all-cause death, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, hospital admission for refractory myocardial ischemia, or hospital admission for heart failure., Results: A total of 2147 patients were randomized; 1075 patients allocated to very early invasive evaluation had ICA performed at a median of 4.7 hours after randomization, whereas 1072 patients assigned to standard invasive care had ICA performed 61.6 hours after randomization. Among patients with significant coronary artery disease identified by ICA, coronary revascularization was performed in 88.4% (very early ICA) and 83.1% (standard invasive care). Within a median follow-up time of 4.3 (interquartile range, 4.1-4.4) years, the primary end point occurred in 296 (27.5%) of participants in the very early ICA group and 316 (29.5%) in the standard care group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.78-1.08). Among patients with a GRACE risk score (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) >140, a very early invasive treatment strategy improved the primary outcome compared with the standard invasive treatment (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-1.01; P value for interaction=0.023)., Conclusions: A strategy of very early invasive coronary evaluation does not improve overall long-term clinical outcome compared with an invasive strategy conducted within 2 to 3 days in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. However, in patients with the highest risk, very early invasive therapy improves long-term outcomes., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02061891.

BACKGROUND: The impact of disease severity on the outcome after complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment--elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease is uncertain. The objective of this post hoc study was to evaluate the impact of number of diseased vessel, lesion location, and severity of the noninfarct-related stenosis on the effect of fractional flow reserve--guided complete revascularization. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI study (Primary PCI in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: Treatment of Culprit Lesion Only or Complete Revascularization), we randomized 627 ST-segment--elevation myocardial infarction patients to fractional flow reserve--guided complete revascularization or infarct-related percutaneous coronary intervention only. In patients with 3-vessel disease, fractional flow reserve--guided complete revascularization reduced the primary end point (all-cause mortality, reinfarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization; hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17--0.64; P=0.001), with no significant effect in patients with 2-vessel disease (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.47--1.26; P=0.29; P for interaction =0.046). A similar effect was observed in patients with diameter stenosis ≥90% of noninfarct-related arteries (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-- 0.62; P=0.001), but not in patients with less severe lesions (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.44--1.19; P=0.21; P for interaction =0.06). The effect was most pronounced in patients with 3-vessel disease and noninfarct-related stenoses ≥90%, and in this subgroup, there was a nonsignificant reduction in the end point of mortality and reinfarction (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.08--1.32; P=0.09). Proximal versus distal location did not influence the benefit from complete revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit from fractional flow reserve--guided complete revascularization in ST-segment--elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease was dependent on the presence of 3-vessel disease and noninfarct diameter stenosis ≥90% and was particularly pronounced in patients with both of these angiographic characteristics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01960933. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]