588 Prognostic impact of early vs. deferred angiography in MINOCA patients

Abstract

Abstract Aims Although an early invasive strategy (coronary angiography performed <24 h) is associated with a lower risk of recurrent/refractory ischaemia among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and obstructive coronary arteries, the optimal timing of invasive examination in patients with non-obstructive coronary arteries and non-ST-segment elevation presentation (NSTE-MINOCA) has not been explored. This study tested the hypothesis that, compared to early (<24 h) invasive strategy, deferred (≥24 h) coronary angiography has equivalent prognostic impact in patients with NSTE-MINOCA. Methods and results From 2016 to 2020, all consecutive MINOCA patients diagnosed according to the current ESC diagnostic criteria (angiographic conventional cut-off of < 50% coronary stenosis without a clinically apparent alternative diagnosis) and admitted to our Centre with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) presentation were enrolled. Very high-risk NSTEMI patients have been excluded from the study. The prognostic value of an early (<24 h) vs. deferred (≥24 h) coronary angiography was assessed. All-cause mortality and a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, re-hospitalization for heart failure, and myocardial re-infarction were evaluated. 198 NSTE-MINOCA patients were enrolled. MINOCA patients were more frequently females (64%) and the mean age was 68.6 ± 13.2 years. The median follow-up time was 26 (14–40) months. The total number of events was 54 (27.3%). Kaplan–Meier curves showed that there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.88) between the two study groups depending on the time of invasive strategy adopted. Specifically, the rates of death (15% vs. 11.3%) and MACEs (28.3% vs. 25%) were similar in MINOCA patients undergoing early vs. deferred angiography. Conclusions We demonstrate for the first time that in the MINOCA population the prognosis was not influenced by an early vs. deferred coronary angiography, unlike in AMI patients with obstructive coronary arteries. These results add another piece to the puzzle and pave the way for the initial use of a non-invasive imaging strategy (e.g. Coronary-CT), mostly in patients with NSTEMI and high clinical suspicion of non-obstructive coronary arteries.