Search

Background: Older people less frequently receive invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for NSTEMI than younger patients. We describe care, ICA data, and in-hospital and 30-day outcomes of NSTEMI by age in a contemporary and geographically diverse cohort., Methods: Prospective cohort study including 2947 patients with NSTEMI from 287 centres in 59 countries, stratified by age (≥75 years, n = 761). Quality of care was evaluated based on 12 guideline-recommended care interventions, and data collected on ICA. Outcomes included in hospital acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, repeat myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, BARC Type ≥3 bleeding and death, as well as 30-day mortality., Results: Patients aged ≥75 years, compared with younger patients, at presentation had a higher prevalence of comorbidities and oral anticoagulation prescription (22.4% vs 7.6%, p < 0.001). Older patients less frequently received ICA than younger patients (78.6% vs 90.6%, p < 0.001) with the recorded reason more often being advanced age, comorbidities or frailty. Of those who underwent ICA, older patients more frequently demonstrated 3-vessel, 4-vessel and/or left main stem coronary artery disease compared to younger patients (49.7% vs 34.1%, p < 0.001) but less frequently received revascularisation (63.6% vs 76.9%, p < 0.001). Older patients experienced higher rates of in-hospital acute heart failure (15.0% vs 8.4%, p < 0.001) and bleeding (2.8% vs 1.3%, p = 0.006), as well as in-hospital and 30-day mortality (3.4% vs 1.3%, p < 0.001; 4.8% vs 1.7%, p < 0.001; respectively), than younger patients., Conclusions: Patients aged ≥75 years with NSTEMI, compared with younger patients, less frequently received ICA and guideline-recommended care, and had worse short-term outcomes., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Women have historically been disadvantaged in terms of care and outcomes for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). We describe patterns of presentation, care, and outcomes for NSTEMI by sex in a contemporary and geographically diverse cohort., Methods and Results: Prospective cohort study including 2947 patients (907 women, 2040 men) with Type I NSTEMI from 287 centres in 59 countries, stratified by sex. Quality of care was evaluated based on 12 guideline-recommended care interventions. The all-or-none scoring composite performance measure was used to define receipt of optimal care. Outcomes included acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, repeat myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, BARC Type ≥3 bleeding, or death in-hospital, as well as 30-day mortality. Women admitted with NSTEMI were older, more comorbid, and more frequently categorized as at higher ischaemic (GRACE >140, 54.0% vs. 41.7%, P < 0.001) and bleeding (CRUSADE >40, 51.7% vs. 17.6%, P < 0.001) risk than men. Women less frequently received invasive coronary angiography (ICA; 83.0% vs. 89.5%, P < 0.001), smoking cessation advice (46.4% vs. 69.5%, P < 0.001), and P2Y12 inhibitor prescription at discharge (81.9% vs. 90.0%, P < 0.001). Non-receipt of ICA was more often due to frailty for women than men (16.7% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.010). At ICA, more women than men had non-obstructive coronary artery disease or angiographically normal arteries (15.8% vs. 6.3%, P < 0.001). Rates of in-hospital adverse outcomes and 30-day mortality were low and did not differ by sex., Conclusion: In contemporary practice, women presenting with NSTEMI, compared with men, less frequently receive antiplatelet prescription, smoking cessation advice, or are considered eligible for ICA., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: H.B., K.H., P.L., R.N., and V.K. report no conflict of interest. C.P.G. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehrinher-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Vifor, Pharma, Menarini, Wondr Medical, Raisio Group, and Oxford University Press. He has received educational and research grants from BMS, Abbott Inc., the British Heart Foundation, National Institute of Health Research, Horizon 2020, and from the European Society of Cardiology, outside the submitted work. S.B. reports personal fees from Boston Scientific, Insight, Lifetech, iVascular, and Abbott Vascular. D.M. reports personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biosensors and Terumo. He has participated on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or Advisory Boards for Abbott and Boston Scientific. A.B. reports personal and institutional investigator fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Novartis, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Bayer. He reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Novartis, and Bayer. He has participated in Data Safety Monitoring Boards or Advisory Boards for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, and Bayer. He has received support for attending meetings by Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, and Bayer. S.L. reports personal fees from ICON, Chiesi, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, and Novo Nordisk. M.L. reports speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Boehrinher-Ingelheim, Novartis and sanofi, and manuscript writing fees from Edwards Lifesciences. She has also participated as an advisory board member for sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, and Boehrinher-Ingelheim. Y.A. reports a research grant from the Dutch Heart Foundation. Signed COIs available for all authors., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The majority of NSTEMI burden resides outside high-income countries (HICs). We describe presentation, care, and outcomes of NSTEMI by country income classification., Methods and Results: Prospective cohort study including 2947 patients with NSTEMI from 287 centres in 59 countries, stratified by World Bank country income classification. Quality of care was evaluated based on 12 guideline-recommended care interventions. The all-or-none scoring composite performance measure was used to define receipt of optimal care. Outcomes included in-hospital acute heart failure, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, and death, and 30-day mortality. Patients admitted with NSTEMI in low to lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs), compared with patients in HICs, were younger, more commonly diabetic, and current smokers, but with a lower burden of other comorbidities, and 76.7% met very high risk criteria for an immediate invasive strategy. Invasive coronary angiography use increased with ascending income classification (LLMICs, 79.2%; upper middle income countries [UMICs], 83.7%; HICs, 91.0%), but overall care quality did not (≥80% of eligible interventions achieved: LLMICS, 64.8%; UMICs 69.6%; HICs 55.1%). Rates of acute heart failure (LLMICS, 21.3%; UMICs, 12.1%; HICs, 6.8%; P < 0.001), stroke/transient ischaemic attack (LLMICS: 2.5%; UMICs: 1.5%; HICs: 0.9%; P = 0.04), in-hospital mortality (LLMICS, 3.6%; UMICs: 2.8%; HICs: 1.0%; P < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (LLMICs, 4.9%; UMICs, 3.9%; HICs, 1.5%; P < 0.001) exhibited an inverse economic gradient., Conclusion: Patients with NSTEMI in LLMICs present with fewer comorbidities but a more advanced stage of acute disease, and have worse outcomes compared with HICs. A cardiovascular health narrative is needed to address this inequity across economic boundaries., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) EURObservational Research Programme (EORP) Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) Registry aims to identify international patterns in NSTEMI management in clinical practice and outcomes against the 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without ST-segment-elevation., Methods and Results: Consecutively hospitalised adult NSTEMI patients (n = 3620) were enrolled between 11 March 2019 and 6 March 2021, and individual patient data prospectively collected at 287 centres in 59 participating countries during a two-week enrolment period per centre. The registry collected data relating to baseline characteristics, major outcomes (in-hospital death, acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, bleeding, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, and 30-day mortality) and guideline-recommended NSTEMI care interventions: electrocardiogram pre- or in-hospital, pre-hospitalization receipt of aspirin, echocardiography, coronary angiography, referral to cardiac rehabilitation, smoking cessation advice, dietary advice, and prescription on discharge of aspirin, P2Y12 inhibition, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), beta-blocker, and statin., Conclusion: The EORP NSTEMI Registry is an international, prospective registry of care and outcomes of patients treated for NSTEMI, which will provide unique insights into the contemporary management of hospitalised NSTEMI patients, compliance with ESC 2015 NSTEMI Guidelines, and identify potential barriers to optimal management of this common clinical presentation associated with significant morbidity and mortality., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Previous studies compared clinical outcomes of early versus delayed invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome up to 1-year follow-up, but long-term data remain scarce. Our aim was to evaluate the long-term effects of immediate invasive intervention in patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI). The Randomized Study of Immediate Versus Delayed Invasive Intervention in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (RIDDLE-NSTEMI) was a randomized, investigator-initiated, parallel-group trial that assigned 323 patients with NSTEMI (1:1) to either immediate (median time to intervention 1.4 hours) or delayed invasive strategy (61.0 hours). The primary end point was the composite of death or new myocardial infarction (MI). At 3 years, immediate invasive intervention was associated with a lower rate of death or new MI, compared with a delayed invasive strategy (12.3% vs 22.5%, hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.87, p = 0.014). The observed benefit of immediate intervention was mainly driven by an increased early reinfarction risk in delayed strategy, with similar new MI rates beyond 30 days (4.4% in the immediate and 5.6% in the delayed group, p = 0.61). Three-year mortality was 9.3% in the immediate invasive strategy, and 10.0% in the delayed strategy (p = 0.83). High baseline Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score (>140) was associated with a significant increase in long-term mortality, regardless of the timing of invasive intervention. In conclusion, whereas immediate invasive intervention significantly reduced the early risk of new MI, the timing of invasive intervention appears to have no significant impact on clinical outcomes beyond 30 days, which seem to mostly be related to the baseline clinical risk profile., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A routine invasive strategy is recommended for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS). However, optimal timing of invasive strategy is less clearly defined. Individual clinical trials were underpowered to detect a mortality benefit; we therefore did a meta-analysis to assess the effect of timing on mortality., Methods: We identified randomised controlled trials comparing an early versus a delayed invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. We included trials that reported all-cause mortality at least 30 days after in-hospital randomisation and for which the trial investigators agreed to collaborate (ie, providing individual patient data or standardised tabulated data). We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) using random-effects models. This meta-analysis is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42015018988)., Findings: We included eight trials (n=5324 patients) with a median follow-up of 180 days (IQR 180-360). Overall, there was no significant mortality reduction in the early invasive group compared with the delayed invasive group HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·64-1·03; p=0·0879). In pre-specified analyses of high-risk patients, we found lower mortality with an early invasive strategy in patients with elevated cardiac biomarkers at baseline (HR 0·761, 95% CI 0·581-0·996), diabetes (0·67, 0·45-0·99), a GRACE risk score more than 140 (0·70, 0·52-0·95), and aged 75 years older (0·65, 0·46-0·93), although tests for interaction were inconclusive., Interpretation: An early invasive strategy does not reduce mortality compared with a delayed invasive strategy in all patients with NSTE-ACS. However, an early invasive strategy might reduce mortality in high-risk patients., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the clinical impact of immediate versus delayed invasive intervention in patients with non-ST-segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI)., Background: Previous studies found conflicting results on the effects of earlier invasive intervention in a heterogeneous population of acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation., Methods: We randomized 323 NSTEMI patients to an immediate-intervention group (<2 h after randomization, n = 162) and a delayed-intervention group (2 to 72 h, n = 161).The primary endpoint was the occurrence of death or new myocardial infarction (MI) at 30-day follow-up., Results: Median time from randomization to angiography was 1.4 h and 61.0 h in the immediate-intervention group and the delayed-intervention group, respectively (p < 0.001). At 30 days, the primary endpoint was achieved less frequently in patients undergoing immediate intervention (4.3% vs. 13%, hazard ratio: 0.32, 95% confidence interval: 0.13 to 0.74; p = 0.008). At 1 year, this difference persisted (6.8% in the immediate-intervention group vs. 18.8% in delayed-intervention group; hazard ratio: 0.34, 95% confidence interval: 0.17 to 0.67; p = 0.002). The observed results were mainly attributable to the occurrence of new MI in the pre-catheterization period (0 deaths + 0 MIs in the immediate-intervention group vs. 1 death + 10 MIs in the delayed-intervention group). The rate of deaths, new MI, or recurrent ischemia was lower in the immediate-intervention group at both 30 days (6.8% vs. 26.7%; p < 0.001) and 1 year (15.4% vs. 33.1%; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Immediate invasive strategy in NSTEMI patients is associated with lower rates of death or new MI compared with the delayed invasive strategy at early and midterm follow-up, mainly due to a decrease in the risk of new MI in the pre-catheterization period. (Immediate Versus Delayed Invasive Intervention for Non-STEMI Patients [RIDDLE-NSTEMI]; NCT02419833)., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)