Importance of Risk Assessment in Timing of Invasive Coronary Evaluation and Treatment of Patients With Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: Insights From the VERDICT Trial

Jawad H Butt, Klaus F Kofoed, Henning Kelbæk, Peter R Hansen, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Dan Høfsten, Lene Holmvang, Frants Pedersen, Lia E Bang, Per E Sigvardsen, Peter Clemmensen, Jesper J Linde, Merete Heitmann, Jens Dahlgaard Hove, Jawdat Abdulla, Gunnar Gislason, Thomas Engstrøm, Lars Køber, Jawad H Butt, Klaus F Kofoed, Henning Kelbæk, Peter R Hansen, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Dan Høfsten, Lene Holmvang, Frants Pedersen, Lia E Bang, Per E Sigvardsen, Peter Clemmensen, Jesper J Linde, Merete Heitmann, Jens Dahlgaard Hove, Jawdat Abdulla, Gunnar Gislason, Thomas Engstrøm, Lars Køber

Abstract

Background The optimal timing of invasive examination and treatment of high-risk patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome has not been established. We investigated the efficacy of early invasive coronary angiography compared with standard-care invasive coronary angiography on the risk of all-cause mortality according to the GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) risk score in a predefined subgroup analysis of the VERDICT (Very Early Versus Deferred Invasive Evaluation Using Computerized Tomography) trial. Methods and Results Patients with clinical suspicion of non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome with ECG changes indicating new ischemia and/or elevated troponin, in whom invasive coronary angiography was clinically indicated and deemed logistically feasible within 12 hours, were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomized 1:1 to an early (≤12 hours) or standard (48-72 hours) invasive strategy. The primary outcome of the present study was all-cause mortality. Of 2147 patients randomized in the VERDICT trial, 2092 patients had an available GRACE risk score. Of these, 1021 (48.8%) patients had a GRACE score >140. During a median follow-up of 4.1 years, 192 (18.8%) and 54 (5.0%) patients died in the high and low GRACE score groups, respectively. The risk of death with the early invasive strategy was increased in patients with a GRACE score ≤140 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.04 [95% CI, 1.16-3.59]), whereas there was a trend toward a decreased risk of death with the early invasive strategy in patients with a GRACE score >140 (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.63-1.10]) (Pinteraction=0.006). Conclusions In patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome, we found a significant interaction between timing of invasive coronary angiography and GRACE score on the risk of death. Randomized clinical trials are warranted to establish the efficacy and safety among high-risk and low-risk patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02061891.

Keywords: GRACE score; acute coronary syndrome; heart failure; invasive coronary angiography; mortality.

Conflict of interest statement

Dr Kofoed reports research grants from AP Møller og hustru Chastine McKinney Møllers Fond, The John and Birthe Meyer Foundation, Research Council of Rigshopitalet, the University of Copenhagen, the Danish Heart Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation by the Danish Council for Strategic Research, and Novo Nordisk Foundation; and unrestricted research grants from Canon Medical Systems. Dr Torp‐Pedersen reports grants from Bayer and grants from Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr Clemmensen reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, ACI Clinical, and Bayer outside the submitted work. Dr Engstrøm reports personal fees from Abbott outside the submitted work. Dr Køber reports personal fees from speakers honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report.

Figures

Figure 1. Absolute risk of death according…
Figure 1. Absolute risk of death according to GRACE score (above/below median).
A, GRACE score <140. B, GRACE score >140. GRACE indicates Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events.
Figure 2. Absolute risk of secondary outcomes…
Figure 2. Absolute risk of secondary outcomes according to GRACE score (above/below median).
A, Heart failure hospitalization: GRACE score <140. B, Heart failure hospitalization: GRACE score >140. C, Nonfatal acute myocardial infarction: GRACE score <140. D, Nonfatal acute myocardial infarction: GRACE score >140. E, Refractory myocardial ischemia: GRACE score <140. F, Refractory myocardial ischemia: GRACE score >140. G, Repeat coronary revascularization: GRACE score <140. H, Repeat coronary revascularization: GRACE score >140. GRACE indicates Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events.
Figure 3. Treatment effect on outcomes according…
Figure 3. Treatment effect on outcomes according to GRACE score (above/below median).
AMI indicates acute myocardial infarction; GRACE, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events; and ICA, invasive coronary angiography.
Figure 4. Treatment effect on the primary…
Figure 4. Treatment effect on the primary outcome of death according to the components of the GRACE score.
Units for creatinine are milligrams per deciliter. Units for systolic blood pressure are millimeters of mercury. GRACE indicates Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events; and ICA, invasive coronary angiography.

References

    1. Puymirat E, Simon T, Cayla G, Cottin Y, Elbaz M, Coste P, Lemesle G, Motreff P, Popovic B, Khalife K, et al. Acute myocardial infarction: changes in patient characteristics, management, and 6‐month outcomes over a period of 20 years in the FAST‐MI program (French registry of acute ST‐elevation or non‐ST‐elevation myocardial infarction) 1995 to 2015. Circulation. 2017;136:1908–1919. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030798
    1. Szummer K, Wallentin L, Lindhagen L, Alfredsson J, Erlinge D, Held C, James S, Kellerth T, Lindahl B, Ravn‐Fischer A, et al. Relations between implementation of new treatments and improved outcomes in patients with non‐ST‐elevation myocardial infarction during the last 20 years: experiences from SWEDEHEART registry 1995 to 2014. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:3766–3776. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy554
    1. Gierlotka M, Gąsior M, Wilczek K, Wasilewski J, Hawranek M, Tajstra M, Osadnik T, Banasiak W, Poloński L. Temporal trends in the treatment and outcomes of patients with non‐ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction in Poland from 2004–2010 (from the Polish Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes). Am J Cardiol. 2012;109:779–786. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.10.041
    1. Hall M, Dondo TB, Yan AT, Goodman SG, Bueno H, Chew DP, Brieger D, Timmis A, Batin PD, Deanfield JE, et al. Association of clinical factors and therapeutic strategies with improvements in survival following non‐ST‐elevation myocardial infarction, 2003–2013. JAMA. 2016;316:1073–1082. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.10766
    1. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, Casey DE, Ganiats TG, Holmes DR, Jaffe AS, Jneid H, Kelly RF, Kontos MC, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non‐ST‐elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2014;130:e344–e426. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000134
    1. Collet J‐P, Thiele H, Barbato E, Barthélémy O, Bauersachs J, Bhatt DL, Dendale P, Dorobantu M, Edvardsen T, Folliguet T, et al. 2020 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST‐segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:1289–1367. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575
    1. Van ’t Hof AWJ, De Vries ST, Dambrink JHE, Miedema K, Suryapranata H, Hoorntje JCA, Gosselink ATM, Zijlstra F, De Boer MJ. A comparison of two invasive strategies in patients with non‐ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: results of the early or late intervention in unstable angina (ELISA) pilot study: 2b/3a upstream therapy and acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2003;24:1401–1405. doi: 10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00259-8
    1. Neumann FJ, Kastrati A, Pogatsa‐Murray G, Mehilli J, Bollwein H, Bestehorn HP, Schmitt C, Seyfarth M, Dirschinger J, Schömig A. Evaluation of prolonged antithrombotic pretreatment (“cooling‐off” strategy) before intervention in patients with unstable coronary syndromes: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2003;290:1593–1599. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.12.1593
    1. Montalescot G, Cayla G, Collet J‐P, Elhadad S, Beygui F, Le Breton H, Choussat R, Leclercq F, Silvain J, Duclos F, et al. Immediate vs delayed intervention for acute coronary syndromes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2009;302:947–954. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1267
    1. Mehta SR, Granger CB, Boden WE, Steg PG, Bassand J‐P, Faxon DP, Afzal R, Chrolavicius S, Jolly SS, Widimsky P, et al. Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2165–2175. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0807986
    1. Thiele H, Rach J, Klein N, Pfeiffer D, Hartmann A, Hambrecht R, Sick P, Eitel I, Desch S, Schuler G. Optimal timing of invasive angiography in stable non‐ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: the Leipzig Immediate versus early and late PercutaneouS coronary Intervention triAl in NSTEMI (LIPSIA‐NSTEMI Trial). Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2035–2043. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr418
    1. Badings EA, The SHK, Dambrink JHE, Van Wijngaarden J, Tjeerdsma G, Rasoul S, Timmer JR, Van Der Wielen MLJ, Lok DJA, Van ’t Hof AWJ. Early or late intervention in high‐risk non‐ST‐elevation acute coronary syndromes: results of the ELISA‐3 trial. EuroIntervention. 2013;9:54–61. doi: 10.4244/EIJV9I1A9
    1. Milosevic A, Vasiljevic‐Pokrajcic Z, Milasinovic D, Marinkovic J, Vukcevic V, Stefanovic B, Asanin M, Dikic M, Stankovic S, Stankovic G. Immediate versus delayed invasive intervention for non‐STEMI patients: the RIDDLE‐NSTEMI study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:541–549. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.11.018
    1. Jobs A, Mehta SR, Montalescot G, Vicaut E, van't Hof AWJ, Badings EA, Neumann F‐J, Kastrati A, Sciahbasi A, Reuter P‐G, et al. Optimal timing of an invasive strategy in patients with non‐ST‐elevation acute coronary syndrome: a meta‐analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2017;390:737–746. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31490-3
    1. Kofoed KF, Kelbæk H, Hansen PR, Torp‐Pedersen C, Høfsten D, Kløvgaard L, Holmvang L, Helqvist S, Jørgensen E, Galatius S, et al. Early versus standard care invasive examination and treatment of patients with non‐ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndrome verdict randomized controlled trial. Circulation. 2018;138:2741–2750. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037152
    1. Granger CB, Goldberg RJ, Dabbous O, Pieper KS, Eagle KA, Cannon CP, Van de Werf FV, Avezum Á, Goodman SG, Flather MD, et al. Predictors of hospital mortality in the global registry of acute coronary events. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:2345–2353. doi: 10.1001/archinte.163.19.2345
    1. Eagle KA, Lim MJ, Dabbous OH, Pieper KS, Goldberg RJ, Van de Werf F, Goodman SG, Granger CB, Steg PG, Gore JM, et al. A validated prediction model for all forms of acute coronary syndrome estimating the risk of 6‐month postdischarge death in an international registry. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;291:2727–2733. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.22.2727
    1. Pedersen CB. The Danish civil registration system. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:22–25. doi: 10.1177/1403494810387965
    1. Helweg‐Larsen K. The Danish register of causes of death. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:26–29. doi: 10.1177/1403494811399958
    1. Gray RJ. A class of $K$‐sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16:1141–1154. doi: 10.1214/aos/1176350951
    1. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli‐Ducci C, Bueno H, Caforio ALP, Crea F, Goudevenos JA, Halvorsen S, et al. 2017 ESC guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST‐segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:119–177. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393
    1. Anderson JL. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2013;127:e362–e425. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182742cf6
    1. Banning AS, Gershlick AH. Timing of intervention in non‐ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J Suppl. 2018;20:B10–B20. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/sux043
    1. Beigel R, Matetzky S, Gavrielov‐Yusim N, Fefer P, Gottlieb S, Zahger D, Atar S, Finkelstein A, Roguin A, Goldenberg I, et al. Predictors of high‐risk angiographic findings in patients with non‐ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;83:677–683. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25081
    1. Slottow TLP, Waksman R. Overview of the 2006 Food and Drug Administration Circulatory System Devices Panel meeting on drug‐eluting stent thrombosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;69:1064–1074. doi: 10.1002/ccd.21179
    1. Engstrøm T, Kelbæk H, Helqvist S, Høfsten DE, Kløvgaard L, Holmvang L, Jørgensen E, Pedersen F, Saunamäki K, Clemmensen P, et al. Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI‐3 ‐ PRIMULTI): an open‐label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:665–671. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60648-1
    1. Smits PC, Abdel‐Wahab M, Neumann F‐J, Boxma‐de Klerk BM, Lunde K, Schotborgh CE, Piroth Z, Horak D, Wlodarczak A, Ong PJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve‐guided multivessel angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1234–1244. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1701067

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere