Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: When Is Rapid Revascularization Critical?

Abstract

HomeJournal of the American Heart AssociationVol. 10, No. 19Non–ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: When Is Rapid Revascularization Critical? Open AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyRedditDiggEmail Jump toOpen AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBNon–ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: When Is Rapid Revascularization Critical? Brian C. Case, MD and William S. Weintraub, MD Brian C. CaseBrian C. Case https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5355-9594 Section of Interventional Cardiology, , MedStar Washington Hospital Center, , Washington, , DC Search for more papers by this author and William S. WeintraubWilliam S. Weintraub * Correspondence to: William S. Weintraub, MD, MACC, FAHA, FESC, MedStar Health Research Institute, Georgetown University, 110 Irving Street NW, Washington, DC 20010. E‐mail: E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5384-5571 MedStar Health Research Institute and Georgetown University, , Washington, , DC Search for more papers by this author Originally published29 Sep 2021https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.023645Journal of the American Heart Association. 2021;10:e023645This article is a commentary on the followingImportance 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 TrialOther version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: September 29, 2021: Ahead of Print Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains a devastating event in patients with cardiovascular disease worldwide.1 Among patients suffering an AMI, non–ST‐segment–elevation MI (NSTEMI) is approximately twice as common as ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).2 The efficacy of immediate reperfusion in the setting of STEMI is well established, consistent with the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque rupture/erosion and thrombosis.3 In patients with NSTEMI, the efficacy of an invasive strategy with revascularization in appropriate patients is also well established.4 However, in contrast to STEMI, the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography and revascularization in NSTEMI is controversial, with some evidence that high‐risk patients benefit from an early invasive strategy.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Thus, current guidelines recommend an early invasive strategy within 24 hours of hospital admission in patients with NSTEMI and a high‐risk profile, in particular a GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) risk score >140.12, 13 However, the recent 2020 European Society of Cardiology guidelines acknowledge that there is a gap in evidence of NSTEMI care concerning the optimal timing of angiography and revascularization and further research is needed.12The original VERDICT (Very Early Versus Deferred Invasive Evaluation Using Computerized Tomography) trial,14 which was a multicenter, open‐label, parallel‐group, randomized controlled trial, evaluated the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography in patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation acute coronary syndromes (n=2147). The majority, but not all, of the patients in VERDICT would qualify as having an NSTEMI. The principal finding was a very early strategy (<12 hours), as compared with standard invasive strategy (48–72 hours), did not reduce the risk of the composite end point of all‐cause mortality, nonfatal AMI, or hospital admission for refractory myocardial ischemia or heart failure, except for those with a GRACE risk score >140. In the present study in this issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA), Butt et al sought to perform a predefined subgroup analysis of the VERDICT trial to determine the efficacy of early invasive therapy compared with a standard care and its impact on all‐cause mortality according to the GRACE risk score overall and according to its components.15In the current study, 2092 patients with GRACE scores were evaluated, with a median 4.1 years follow‐up. There was a significant interaction between treatment assignment and GRACE score for risk of death; there was a trend toward decreased all‐cause mortality with the early invasive strategy in patients with a GRACE score >140 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63–1.10). It was more concerning, however, that the risk of all‐cause mortality with an early invasive strategy was increased in patients with a GRACE score ≤140 (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.16–3.59; P for interaction, 0.006), with the proportion of deaths attributed to a cardiovascular cause. In addition, the early invasive strategy reduced heart failure hospitalization risk for a GRACE score >140 but not with a GRACE score ≤140 (P for interaction, 0.02). The authors concluded that large‐scale randomized clinical trials, preferably with long‐term follow‐up, are warranted to establish whether an early invasive strategy is beneficial in high‐risk patients with NSTEMI but also whether an early invasive strategy can be harmful among those with a low risk.The investigators should be praised for this contribution providing a spotlight on the optimal timing for an invasive angiography and revascularization for patients with NSTEMI. They were able to evaluate a large number of patients from the well‐constructed VERDICT trial and highlight the optimal timing for high‐risk and low‐risk patients. Among the limitations outlined by the investigators, the most important is that this is a subgroup analysis and the GRACE score was done post hoc and was not powered to determine potential difference in outcome due to the early invasive strategy according to the GRACE score. Further, it is difficult to draw conclusions when the overall VERDICT trial was negative in regard to its primary end point. The investigators findings are hypothesis generating and future large, randomized clinical trials are needed.One challenge of drawing conclusions from this study is that these patients represent a heterogenous patient population in terms of etiology and patient presentation. The underlying etiology for the NSTEMI such as plaque rupture, plaque erosion, spontaneous coronary artery dissection, myocardial infarction with nonobstructive arteries or demand ischemia can vary drastically. Furthermore, the presentation may range from clinically stable to cardiogenic shock. Diagnostically, the lack of ST‐segment–elevation is not a reliable noninvasive diagnostic sign for occlusion. Indeed, patients with a lateral or posterior MI may not demonstrate ST changes, despite total artery occlusion, and delay in treatment may be detrimental. In addition, some patients with NSTEMI may have partially patent artery but insufficient flow to vulnerable subendocardium leading to myocardial ischemia and necrosis. Finally, even with adequate blood flow, the plaque may be unstable with overlying thrombus and be subject to occluding once again, causing reinfarction.This patient population in VERDICT was indeed heterogenous, where not every patient was truly a NSTEMI. Roughly 70% of patients with a GRACE score ≤140 and about 87% with a GRACE score >140 had troponin elevation. Acute coronary syndromes without troponin elevation can be ambiguous and there is no evidence that urgent angiography improves outcomes. Thus, in fact, GRACE score >140 and evidence of an AMI may have even greater benefit with an early intervention. This discrepancy in the clinical presentation of patients included in the VERDICT trial emphasize further the need for larger clinical trials looking specifically at rapid NSTEMI revascularization.Further, all the clinical trials evaluating an early invasive strategy versus standard strategy vary, both in its methods and results. First, the clinical trials vary in terms of the timing of an early invasive strategy versus a standard invasive strategy. A very early invasive strategy in the VERDICT trial was <12 hours; however, this was not consistent across the studies. In some clinical trials the early invasive strategy was as short as 1 hour whereas in others it was up to 24 hours. Second, the timestamp itself varied between studies, meaning the early invasive strategy could have started when the patient arrived in the emergency department whereas in other studies it started after the patient gave consent for the study, potentially delaying the start time overall. Finally, the primary end points and those results have varied between randomized clinical trials.For example, in the TIMACS (Timing of Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes) trial,8 3031 patients with AMI were randomized to coronary angiography ≤24 (median 14) hours versus ≥36 (median 50) hours. At 6 months, the primary outcome (death, MI, stroke, or refractory ischemia) occurred in 9.6% in the early and 11.3% in the delayed intervention group (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.68–1.06; P=0.15). However, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, early intervention improved the primary outcome in the one third of study patients with a GRACE score ≥140 (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48–0.89) but not in the two thirds with a GRACE score <140 (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81–1.56; interaction P=0.01). As the overall trial was not positive, the benefit for patients with GRACE score ≥140 was considered hypothesis generating.More recently, there have been clinical trials considering a very early approach for higher risk patients. For example, the RIDDLE‐NSTEMI (Randomized Study of Immediate Versus Delayed Invasive Intervention in Patients With Non–ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction)10 trial showed a decrease in the composite of death plus MI at 30 days and 1 year in patients treated with immediate (≤2 [median 1.4] hours) rather than delayed (≤72 [median 61] hours) intervention.10, 16 Alternatively, the LIPSIA‐NSTEMI (Leipzig Immediate Versus Early and Late Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Trial in NSTEMI) trial found no benefit to immediate revascularization (<2 hours versus 10–48 hours) but was underpowered for cardiovascular events.9 In the Early or Delayed Revascularization for Intermediate and High‐Risk Non ST‐Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome trial, 709 patients were randomized to a very early (<2 hours) or delayed (12–72 hours) invasive strategy. The primary outcome at 30 days of cardiovascular death or recurrent ischemia was 4.4% with the early and 21.3% with the delayed strategy (P<0.001), mostly because of recurrent ischemia. However, the incidence of cardiovascular death was 0.6% and 1.1% (P=0.69) and of MI 1.2% and 0.8% (P=0.72) with the early and delayed strategies, respectively.There have also been a number of smaller studies. In the ABOARD (Angioplasty to Blunt the Rise of Troponin in Acute Coronary Syndromes Randomized for an Immediate or Delayed Intervention) study of 372 patients, there was no advantage to a very early versus delayed revascularization.7 Conversely, in another small study of 410 patients, ISAR‐COOL (Intracoronary Stenting with Antithrombotic Regimen Cooling‐Off), there was an advantage to early revascularization.6 In yet another small study of 220 patients, Early or Late Intervention in unStable Angina, there was a suggestion of benefit to early revascularization.5 Finally, In the OPTIMA‐2 (Optimal Management of Antithrombotic Agents 2) trial of 249 patients there was no difference in infarct size between an early and immediate revascularization.17The authors of the present VERDICT analysis also discussed the results of a recent meta‐analysis by Jobs et al11 including 8 randomized controlled trials5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19 (n=5324 patients) comparing early versus delayed invasive strategy in patients the majority of whom had an NSTEMI. The analysis demonstrated that with a median follow‐up of 180 days, there was no significant mortality reduction in the early invasive group compared with the delayed invasive group (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.64–1.03; P=0.0879). However, in the prespecified analyses of high‐risk patients, the authors found lower mortality with an early invasive strategy in patients with elevated cardiac biomarkers at baseline (HR, 0.761; 95% CI, 0.581 ‐ 0.996), diabetes (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45–0.99), a GRACE risk score more than 140 (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52–0.95), and aged 75 years or older (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46–0.93), although tests for interaction were inconclusive. However; as noted, these trials varied in timing of the different strategies, enrollment, predefined outcomes, and results, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.Finally, a retrospective analysis of the 2016 Nationwide Readmissions Database identified 748 463 NSTEMI hospitalizations in 2016. Of these hospitalizations, 50.3% involved diagnostic angiography, with 34.1% revascularized.2 Of revascularized patients, 77.6% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and 22.4% underwent coronary artery bypass grafting. Although percutaneous coronary intervention was frequently performed on the day of admission, the majority occurred over the next several days. The in‐hospital mortality rate increased after day 1 (2.1% day 0 to 6.6% day 10) for patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and 30‐day in‐hospital mortality increased as revascularization was delayed (3.5% day 0 to 9.7% day 6). This study highlights that in the real world, patients undergoing early revascularization differ from those undergoing later revascularization with higher mortality with delayed revascularization. Because of treatment selection bias, observational studies cannot resolve whether early revascularization prevents future events. TIMACS, RIDDLE, LIPSIA‐NSTEMI, EARLY, VERDICT, and this retrospective analysis have not resolved the issue, which remains in equipoise.The VERDICT investigators are to be commended for focusing on the current issue of whether rapid invasive strategy, similar to a patient with STEMI (<90 minutes), would be the ideal treatment strategy for high‐risk patients with NSTEMI with a GRACE score >140. A large‐scale, multicenter, international randomized clinical trial to study this particular question is under development, the results of which should answer the question and potentially change practice.DisclosuresWeintraub reports research support from Amarin Corporation, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; consulting Amarin Corporation, AstraZeneca, Janssen, SC Pharma, and The Medicines Company. Case has no disclosures to report.Footnotes* Correspondence to: William S. Weintraub, MD, MACC, FAHA, FESC, MedStar Health Research Institute, Georgetown University, 110 Irving Street NW, Washington, DC 20010. E‐mail: william.s.[email protected]netThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.For Disclosures, see page 3.See Article by Butt et al.References1 Roth GA, Mensah GA, Johnson CO, Addolorato G, Ammirati E, Baddour LM, Barengo NC, Beaton AZ, Benjamin EJ, Benziger CP, et al. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, 1990–2019: update from the GBD 2019 study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020; 76:2982–3021. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.010CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Case BC, Yerasi C, Wang Y, Forrestal BJ, Hahm J, Dolman S, Weintraub WS, Waksman R. Admissions rate and timing of revascularization in the United States in patients with non‐ST‐elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2020; 134:24–31. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.08.010CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Rott D, Leibowitz D. STEMI and NSTEMI are two distinct pathophysiological entities. Eur Heart J. 2007; 28:2685; author reply 2685. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehm368CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Rassi AN, Bhatt DL, Askari AT. Benefit of early invasive therapy in acute coronary syndromes: a meta‐analysis of contemporary randomized clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48:1319–1325. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.06.050CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 van 't Hof AW, de Vries ST, Dambrink JH, Miedema K, Suryapranata H, Hoorntje JC, Gosselink AT, 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)00259‐8CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Neumann FJ, Kastrati A, Pogatsa‐Murray G, Mehilli J, Bollwein H, Bestehorn HP, Schmitt C, Seyfarth M, Dirschinger J, Schomig A. Evaluation of prolonged antithrombotic pretreatment ("cooling‐off" strategy) before intervention in patients with unstable coronary syndromes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003; 290:1593–1599. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.12.1593CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 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.2009.1267CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 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/NEJMoa0807986CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Thiele H, Rach J, Klein N, Pfeiffer D, Hartmann A, Hambrecht R, Sick P, Eitel I, Desch S, Schuler G, et al. 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/ehr418CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 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.2015.11.018CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 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)31490‐3CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 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/ehaa575CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 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:e344–426.LinkGoogle Scholar14 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. Circulation. 2018; 138:2741–2750. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037152LinkGoogle Scholar15 Butt JH, Kofoed KF, Kelbaek H, Hansen P, Torp‐Pedersen C, Høfsten D, Holmvang L, Pedersen F, Bang LE, Sigvardsen P, et al. Importance of risk assessment in timing of invasive coronary evaluation and treatment of patients with non‐ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: insights from the VERDICT Trial. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021; 10:e022333. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.022333LinkGoogle Scholar16 Arora S, Matsushita K, Qamar A, Stacey RB, Caughey MC. Early versus late percutaneous revascularization in patients hospitalized with non ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Surveillance Study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 91:253–259. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27156CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17 ESPRIT Investigators . Novel dosing regimen of eptifibatide in planned coronary stent implantation (ESPRIT): a randomised, placebo‐controlled trial. Lancet. 2000; 356:2037–2044.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18 Badings EA, The SH, Dambrink JH, van Wijngaarden J, Tjeerdsma G, Rasoul S, Timmer JR, van der Wielen ML, Lok DJ, 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/EIJV9I1A9CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19 Sciahbasi A, Madonna M, De Vita M, Agati L, Scioli R, Summaria F, Romagnoli E, Patrizi R, Lanzillo C, Pendenza G, et al. Comparison of immediate vs early invasive strategy in patients with first acute non‐ST‐elevation myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol. 2010; 33:650–655. doi: 10.1002/clc.20785CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesImportance 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 TrialJawad H. Butt, et al. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2021;10 October 5, 2021Vol 10, Issue 19Article InformationMetrics Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley BlackwellThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.023645PMID: 34585607 Originally publishedSeptember 29, 2021 KeywordsGRACE scoreheart failureEditorialsinvasive coronary angiographymortalityacute coronary syndromePDF download SubjectsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRevascularization