Search

Background: Severity and extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) assessed by invasive coronary angiography (ICA) guide treatment and may predict clinical outcome in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS)., Objectives: This study tested the hypothesis that coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) is equivalent to ICA for risk assessment in patients with NSTEACS., Methods: The VERDICT (Very Early Versus Deferred Invasive Evaluation Using Computerized Tomography in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes) trial evaluated timing of treatment in relation to outcome in patients with NSTEACS and included a clinically blinded coronary CTA conducted prior to ICA. Severity of CAD was defined as obstructive (coronary stenosis ≥50%) or nonobstructive. Extent of CAD was defined as high risk (obstructive left main or proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis and/or multivessel disease) or non-high risk. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, hospital admission for refractory myocardial ischemia, or heart failure., Results: Coronary CTA and ICA were conducted in 978 patients. During a median follow-up time of 4.2 years (interquartile range: 2.7 to 5.5 years), the primary endpoint occurred in 208 patients (21.3%). The rate of the primary endpoint was up to 1.7-fold higher in patients with obstructive CAD compared with in patients with nonobstructive CAD as defined by coronary CTA (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22 to 2.49; p = 0.002) or ICA (HR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.11; p = 0.007). In patients with high-risk CAD, the rate of the primary endpoint was 1.5-fold higher compared with the rate in those with non-high-risk CAD as defined by coronary CTA (HR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.07; p = 0.002). A similar trend was noted for ICA (HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.69; p = 0.07)., Conclusions: Coronary CTA is equivalent to ICA for the assessment of long-term risk in patients with NSTEACS. (Very Early Versus Deferred Invasive Evaluation Using Computerized Tomography in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes [VERDICT]; NCT02061891)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was funded by the Danish Agency for Science, Technology, and Innovation and the Danish Council for Strategic Research (grant 09–066994) and the Research Council of Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. Dr. Kofoed has received grants from the Danish Research Foundation during the conduct of the study, in addition to grants from the Research Council of Rigshospitalet, AP Moller og Hustru Chastine McKinney Mollers Fond, the Danish Heart Foundation, and Canon Medical Corporation, outside the submitted work. Dr. Engstrom has received personal fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, and Novo, outside the submitted work. Dr. Linde has received grants from the Danish Research Foundation and the Research Council of Rigshospitalet during the conduct of the study. Dr. Torp-Pedersen has received grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Abdulla has received personal fees from Novartis Healthcare, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kober has received grants from the Danish Research Foundation during the conduct of the study. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS), coronary pathology may range from structurally normal vessels to severe coronary artery disease., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to test if coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) may be used to exclude coronary artery stenosis ≥50% in patients with NSTEACS., Methods: The VERDICT (Very Early Versus Deferred Invasive Evaluation Using Computerized Tomography in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes) trial (NCT02061891) evaluated the outcome of patients with confirmed NSTEACS randomized 1:1 to very early (within 12 h) or standard (48 to 72 h) invasive coronary angiography (ICA). As an observational component of the trial, a clinically blinded coronary CTA was conducted prior to ICA in both groups. The primary endpoint was the ability of coronary CTA to rule out coronary artery stenosis (≥50% stenosis) in the entire population, expressed as the negative predictive value (NPV), using ICA as the reference standard., Results: Coronary CTA was conducted in 1,023 patients-very early, 2.5 h (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.8 to 4.2 h), n = 583; and standard, 59.9 h (IQR: 38.9 to 86.7 h); n = 440 after the diagnosis of NSTEACS was made. A coronary stenosis ≥50% was found by coronary CTA in 68.9% and by ICA in 67.4% of the patients. Per-patient NPV of coronary CTA was 90.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.8% to 94.1%) and the positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were 87.9% (95% CI: 85.3% to 90.1%), 96.5% (95% CI: 94.9% to 97.8%) and 72.4% (95% CI: 67.2% to 77.1%), respectively. NPV was not influenced by patient characteristics or clinical risk profile and was similar in the very early and the standard strategy group., Conclusions: Coronary CTA has a high diagnostic accuracy to rule out clinically significant coronary artery disease in patients with NSTEACS., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Aims: We aimed to study survival and causes of death in patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (STE-ACS) with and without obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD)., Methods and Results: We included 4793 consecutive patients with STE-ACS triaged for acute coronary angiography at a large cardiac invasive centre (2009-2014). Of these, 88% had obstructive CAD (stenosis ≥50%), 6% had non-obstructive CAD (stenosis 1-49%), and 5% had normal coronary arteries. Patients without obstructive CAD were younger and more often female with fewer cardiovascular risk factors. Median follow-up time was 2.6 years. Compared with patients with obstructive CAD, the short-term hazard of death (≤30 days) was lower in both patients with non-obstructive CAD [hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.89, P = 0.018] and normal coronary arteries (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.83, P = 0.021). In contrast, the long-term hazard of death (>30 days) was similar in patients with non-obstructive CAD (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.77-1.72, P = 0.487) and higher in patients with normal coronary arteries (HR 2.44, 95% CI 1.58-3.76, P < 0.001), regardless of troponin levels. Causes of death were cardiovascular in 70% of patients with obstructive CAD, 38% with non-obstructive CAD, and 32% with normal coronary arteries. Finally, patients without obstructive CAD had lower survival compared with an age and sex matched general population., Conclusions: STE-ACS patients without obstructive CAD had a long-term risk of death similar to or higher than patients with obstructive CAD. Causes of death were less often cardiovascular. This suggests that STE-ACS patients without obstructive CAD warrant medical attention and close follow-up., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2017. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Due to the limitations of 12-lead ECG, occlusions of the left circumflex artery (LCX) are more likely to present as non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) compared with other coronary arteries. We aimed to study mortality in patients with LCX lesions and to assess the importance of coronary artery dominance on triage of these patients., Methods and Results: From the Eastern Danish Heart Registry, 3,632 NSTEACS and 3,907 ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) consecutive, single-vessel disease patients were included. LCX was the culprit in 25% of NSTEACS and 14% of STEMIs (p<0.001). LCX lesions presented predominantly as STEMI in left dominant coronary arteries compared with NSTEACS (46% vs. 30%, p<0.001). Higher 30-day mortality was found in LCX-STEMI compared with LCX-NSTEACS (HR 7.9, 95% CI: 3.2-19.7, p<0.001) with no difference in long-term mortality (HR 0.9, 95% CI: 0.7-1.2, p=0.5). LCX-NSTEACS were not associated with higher mortality compared with other NSTEACS lesions., Conclusions: The 12-lead ECG seems sufficient for triage of patients with LCX lesions as a majority of patients with a large LCX due to a dominant left coronary artery present as STEMI. Patients with LCX-NSTEACS do not have higher mortality compared with patients with LCX-STEMI or NSTEACS with lesions in other coronary territories.

Aim: To investigate whether an intensified antiplatelet regimen could improve prognosis in stable or non-ST elevation in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients exhibiting high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) on clopidogrel and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is a wide variability in the platelet reactivity to clopidogrel and HTPR has been associated with a poor prognosis., Methods: In this observational study, 923 consecutive patients without ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and adequately pre-treated with clopidogrel were screened for HTPR with multiple electrode aggregometry after assessment of the coronary anatomy. Patients were grouped based on their response to clopidogrel and the assigned antiplatelet strategy. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or stent thrombosis., Results: HTPR was demonstrated in 237 patients (25.7%). Of these, 114 continued on conventional clopidogrel therapy, while the remaining 123 received intensified antiplatelet therapy with either double-dose clopidogrel (150 mg daily, n = 55) or the newer P2Y12-inhibitors, prasugrel or ticagrelor (n = 68) for at least 30 days after the index procedure. The median follow-up was 571 days (interquartile range, 373-746). Intensifying antiplatelet therapy reduced the rate of the composite endpoint (p < 0.001). After adjustment for potential confounders, HTPR in combination with conventional clopidogrel therapy remained independently associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio (HR), 2.92; 95% CI, 1.90-4.48), whereas intensified treatment reduced the risk to a level equivalent to that of patients exhibiting normal platelet reactivity (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.59-1.99)., Conclusion: Tailored antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced the event rate in patients exhibiting HTPR prior to PCI.

Objective: To investigate whether distance from a patient's home to the nearest invasive centre influenced the invasive treatment strategy in acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Methods: This was an observational cohort study using nationwide registries involving 24,910 patients admitted with ACS (median age 67, range 30-90 years). All persons were grouped in tertiles according to the distance from their residence to the invasive centre. Cox proportional hazard models were applied to estimate the differences in coronary angiography and revascularisation rate within 60 days of admission according to the distance to the centre. The end points were coronary angiography and subsequent revascularisation., Results: Of 24,910 patients with a first ACS, 33% resided <21 km from one of the five invasive centres in Denmark, 33% lived between 21 and 64 km away and 34% lived >64 km away. The incidence of coronary angiography was 68% for long distance versus 77% for short distance (p<0.05), with an HR of 0.78 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.81, p<0.0001). Adjustment for patient characteristics such as age, sex, co-morbidity and socioeconomic status did not attenuate the difference (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.77, p<0.0001). Furthermore, revascularisation in the subgroup examined with coronary angiography was less likely for those residing a long distance from the invasive centre compared with those living nearer (adjusted HR of 0.82 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.85, p<0.0001)., Conclusions: In patients hospitalised with ACS, invasive examination and treatment were less likely the further away from an invasive centre the patients resided, thus equal and uniform invasive examination and treatment was not found.

Background: YKL-40 is involved in remodelling and angiogenesis in non-cardiac inflammatory diseases. Aim was to quantitate plasma YKL-40 in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or stable chronic coronary artery disease (CAD), and YKL-40 gene activation in human myocardium., Methods and Results: We included 73 patients: I) 20 patients with STEMI; II) 28 patients with stable CAD; III) 15 CAD patients referred for coronary by-pass surgery. YKL-40 mRNA expression was measured in myocardium subtended by stenotic or occluded arteries and areas with no apparent disease; and IV) 10 age-matched healthy controls. Plasma YKL-40 was significantly increased in patients with STEMI (88 microg/l, median) and CAD (66 microg/l) compared to controls (16 microg/l, p<0.01 for both). Plasma YKL-40 correlated with CRP at baseline in STEMI (r=0.53, p=0.02) and CAD patients (r=0.41, p=0.031).YKL-40 gene expression was similar in ischemic and non-ischemic myocardium., Conclusions: Plasma YKL-40 was significantly increased in patients with STEMI and stable CAD. Further studies will define the role of YKL-40 as a clinically useful marker for myocardial ischemia, remodelling and maybe prognosis.

• SuPAR was a strong prognostic biomarker of non-cardiac mortality after STEMI. • The suPAR level was independent of sampling time < 12 h after revascularization. • SuPAR may identify patients in risk of non-cardiac mortality prior to discharge. Identification of patients at high risk of non-cardiac mortality following ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) could guide clinicians to identify patients who require attention due to serious non-cardiac conditions after the acute phase of STEMI. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the non-specific and prognostic biomarker of inflammation and comorbidity, soluble urokinase receptor (suPAR), could predict non-cardiac mortality in a cohort of STEMI patients. SuPAR was measured in 1,190 STEMI patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). The primary endpoint was non-cardiac mortality, secondary endpoints were cardiac mortality, all-cause mortality, reinfarction and periprocedural acute kidney injury. Backwards elimination of potential confounders significantly associated with the respective outcome was used to adjust associations. Patients were followed for a median of 3.0 years (interquartile range 2.5– 3.6 years). Multivariate cox regression revealed that a plasma suPAR level above 3.70 ng mL−1 was associated with non-cardiac and cardiac mortality at hazard ratios 3.33 (95% confidence interval 1.67–6.63, p = 0.001, adjusted for age) and 0.99 (0.18–5.30, p = 0.98, adjusted for previous myocardial infarction and left ventricular ejection fraction), respectively. In patients with pPCI treated STEMI, suPAR was an independent prognostic biomarker of non-cardiac but not cardiac mortality and may identify patients with high risk of non-cardiac mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapy after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have not demonstrated impact on systolic recovery compared to placebo. However, recent studies suggest that timing of G-CSF therapy is crucial. Methods: Timing of G-CSF treatment was analyzed in the STEMMI MRI subpopulation including 54 patients with STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) <12 h after symptom onset. Patients were randomized to double blind treatment with G-CSF (10 µg/kg/day) or placebo. Treatment was initiated from 17 to 65 h (mean 30) after PCI. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was evaluated with MRI. Results: Recovery of LVEF from baseline to 6 months was not associated with time from PCI to G-CSF. An identical improvement in LVEF was found in the placebo group and the G-CSF group (p =0.8). There was no correlation between time from PCI to G-CSF and maximum plasma concentration of CD34+ cells (r =−0.3, p =0.1). Similar results were found from data on recovery of the infarction size and change in the systolic wall thickening. Conclusions: In the time window from 17 to 65 h after STEMI treated with PCI, the timing of G-CSF treatment does not seem to affect the recovery of LVEF. It remains to be determined if very early, or very late G-CSF treatment might be effective. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]