Early Versus Standard Care Invasive Examination and Treatment of Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome
Authors: Klaus F. Kofoed, Henning Kelbæk, Peter Riis Hansen, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Dan Høfsten, Lene Kløvgaard, Lene Holmvang, Steffen Helqvist, Erik Jørgensen, Søren Galatius, Frants Pedersen, Lia Bang, Kari Saunamaki, Peter Clemmensen, Jesper J. Linde, Merete Heitmann, Olav Wendelboe Nielsen, Ilan E. Raymond, Ole Peter Kristiansen, Ida Hastrup Svendsen, Jan Bech, Maria Helena Dominguez Vall-Lamora, Charlotte Kragelund, Thomas Fritz Hansen, Jens Dahlgaard Hove, Tem Jørgensen, Gitte G. Fornitz, Rolf Steffensen, Birgit Jurlander, Jawdat Abdulla, Stig Lyngbæk, Hanne Elming, Susette Krohn Therkelsen, Ulrik Abildgaard, Jan Skov Jensen, Gunnar Gislason, Lars V. Køber, Thomas Engstrøm
Journal: Circulation (2018)

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) &gt;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.