Back to Search Start Over

Timing of Complete Multivessel Revascularization in Patients Presenting With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Authors :
Elscot JJ
Kakar H
Scarparo P
den Dekker WK
Bennett J
Schotborgh CE
van der Schaaf R
Sabaté M
Moreno R
Ameloot K
van Bommel RJ
Forlani D
Van Reet B
Esposito G
Dirksen MT
Ruifrok WPT
Everaert BRC
Van Mieghem C
Pinar E
Alfonso F
Cummins P
Lenzen M
Brugaletta S
Daemen J
Boersma E
Van Mieghem NM
Diletti R
Source :
JACC. Cardiovascular interventions [JACC Cardiovasc Interv] 2024 Mar 25; Vol. 17 (6), pp. 771-782.
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

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.<br />Objectives: This study aims to compare immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and MVD.<br />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.<br />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).<br />Conclusions: ICR is safe in patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD and was associated with a reduction in MIs and UIDRs at 1 year.<br />Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The BIOVASC trial was funded by the Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, and Biotronik SE & Co KG, Berlin. Dr Diletti has received institutional research grants from Biotronik, Medtronic, ACIST Medical Systems, and Boston Scientific. Dr den Dekker has received institutional research grants from Biotronik. Dr Van Mieghem has received institutional research grants from Biotronik, Abbott, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, PulseCath, Abiomed, and Daiichi-Sankyo; speaker fees from Abiomed and Amgen; and a travel grant from JenaValve. Dr Bennett has received institutional grants from Biotronik, Abbott Vascular, and Shockwave Medical. Dr Daemen has received institutional grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, ACIST Medical Systems, Medtronic, Microport, Pie Medical, and ReCor Medical; and consultancy and speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, ACIST Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, Cardialysis BV, CardiacBooster, Kaminari Medical, ReCor Medical, PulseCath, Pie Medical, Sanofi, Siemens Healthineers, and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.<br /> (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1876-7605
Volume :
17
Issue :
6
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
JACC. Cardiovascular interventions
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
38538172
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2024.01.278