Use, timing and outcome of coronary angiography in patients with high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in daily clinical practice: insights from a 'real world' prospective registry

Background

An early invasive strategy (EIS) is recommended in high-risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), defined as coronary angiography (CAG), within 24 h of admission. The aim of the present study is to investigate guideline adherence, patient characteristics associated with timing of the intervention and clinical outcome.

Methods

In a prospective registry, the use and timing of CAG and the characteristics and clinical outcome associated with timing were evaluated in high-risk ACS patients. The outcome of early versus delayed invasive strategy (DIS) was compared.

Results

Between 2006 and 2014, 2,299 high-risk NSTE-ACS patients were included. The use of CAG increased from 77% in 2006 to 90% in 2014 (p trend <0.001) together with a decrease of median time to CAG from 23.3 to 14.5 h (p trend <0.001) and an increase of patients undergoing EIS from 50 to 60% (p trend = 0.002). Patient factors independently related to DIS were higher GRACE risk score, higher age and the presence of comorbidities. No difference was found in incidence of mortality, reinfarction or bleeding at 30-day follow-up. All-cause mortality at 1‑year follow-up was 4.1% vs 7.0% in EIS and DIS respectively (hazard ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.12–2.49) but was comparable after adjustment for confounding factors.

Conclusion

The percentage of high-risk NSTE-ACS patients undergoing CAG and EIS has increased in the last decade. In contrast to the guidelines, patients with a higher risk profile are less likely to undergo EIS. However, no difference in outcome after 30 days and 1 year was found after multivariate adjustment for this higher risk.

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in daily clinical practice: A single-centre experience

Background

Recent evidence has raised concerns regarding the safety of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (E-BVS) (Absorb, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Following these data, the use of this device has diminished in the Netherlands; however, daily practice data are limited. Therefore we studied the incidence of safety and efficacy outcomes with this device in daily clinical practice in a single large tertiary centre in the Netherlands.

Methods

All E‑BVS treated patients were included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel non-fatal myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and clinically-driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR). The secondary endpoint was the incidence of definite scaffold thrombosis.

Results

Between October 2013 and January 2017, 105 patients were treated with 147 E‑BVS. This population contained 42 (40%) patients with diabetes mellitus and 43 (40.9%) undergoing treatment for acute coronary syndrome, and thus represents a high-risk patient cohort. Mean follow-up was 19.8 months. Intravascular imaging guidance during scaffold implantation was used in 64/105 (43.5%) patients. The primary endpoint (TLF) occurred in 3 (2.9%) patients. All-cause mortality and cardiac mortality occurred in 2 (2%) and 0 (0%) patients respectively. TV-MI occurred in 2 patients (1.9%): both were periprocedural and not related to the BVS implantation. TLR occurred in 1 patient (1.0%) during follow-up. No definite scaffold thrombosis occurred during follow-up.

Conclusion

This single-centre study examining the real-world experience of E‑BVS implantation in a high-risk population shows excellent procedural safety and long-term clinical outcomes.

Timing of intervention in high-risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes in PCI versus non-PCI centres : Sub-group analysis of the ELISA-3 trial

AIMS

To compare the effect of timing of intervention in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus non-PCI centres.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A post-hoc sub-analysis was performed of the ELISA III trial, a randomised multicentre trial investigating outcome of early (< 12 h) versus late (> 48 h) angiography and revascularisation in 542 patients with high-risk NSTE-ACS. 90 patients were randomised in non-PCI centres and tended to benefit more from an early invasive strategy than patients included in the PCI centre (relative risk 0.23 vs. 0.85 [p for interaction = 0.089] for incidence of the combined primary endpoint of death, reinfarction and recurrent ischaemia after 30 days of follow-up). This was largely driven by reduction in recurrent ischaemia. In non-PCI centres, patients randomised to the late group had a 4 and 7 day longer period until PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. This difference was less pronounced in the PCI centre.

CONCLUSIONS

This post-hoc analysis from the ELISA-3 trial suggests that NSTE-ACS patients initially hospitalised in non-PCI centres show the largest benefit from early angiography and revascularisation, associated with a shorter waiting time to revascularisation. Improved patient logistics and transfer between non-PCI and PCI centres might therefore result in better clinical outcome.