Jacob J. Elscot , Hala Kakar , Wijnand K. den Dekker , Johan Bennett , Manel Sabaté , Giovanni Esposito , Eric Boersma , Eugene McFadden , Hector M. Garcia-Garcia , Nicolas M. Van Mieghem , Roberto Diletti , on behalf of the BIOVASC investigators
{"title":"多血管疾病和ST段或非ST段抬高急性冠状动脉综合征患者的立即与分期完全血运重建术","authors":"Jacob J. Elscot , Hala Kakar , Wijnand K. den Dekker , Johan Bennett , Manel Sabaté , Giovanni Esposito , Eric Boersma , Eugene McFadden , Hector M. Garcia-Garcia , Nicolas M. Van Mieghem , Roberto Diletti , on behalf of the BIOVASC investigators","doi":"10.1016/j.ijcard.2025.133496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Recent randomized trials have suggested that immediate complete revascularization (ICR) is a viable alternative to staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease. However, long-term outcomes comparing ICR with SCR in ST-segment elevation (STE) and non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) ACS remain unclear.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This study analyzes 2-year follow-up data from the BIOVASC trial, randomizing ACS patients to ICR or SCR. The primary composite endpoint includes all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular events. Secondary endpoints evaluate these outcomes individually. Cox regression assessed if STE/NSTE-ACS diagnosis influences treatment effect.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In 608 STE-ACS patients, the 2-year cumulative incidence of the primary composite endpoint was 10.9 % (ICR) and 11.7 % (SCR) (risk difference [RD] 0.8 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] -4.3 % to 5.9 %; <em>P</em> = 0.71). In NSTE-ACS, cumulative incidence was 13.5 % (ICR) and 12.8 % (SCR) (RD −0.7 %, 95 % CI -5.1 % to 3.7 %; <em>P</em> = 0.90). No differential effect was observed comparing ICR with SCR between STE- and NSTE-ACS.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>ICR did not sustain a significant benefit in terms of the primary and secondary outcomes at 2 years follow-up. In addition, no differential effect of ICR versus SCR was observed between STE-ACS and NSTE-ACS after 2 years follow-up. However, there seems to be a late catch-up in the cumulative event rate in patients randomized to ICR.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13710,"journal":{"name":"International journal of cardiology","volume":"437 ","pages":"Article 133496"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Immediate versus staged complete revascularization in patients presenting with multivessel disease and ST- or non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome\",\"authors\":\"Jacob J. Elscot , Hala Kakar , Wijnand K. den Dekker , Johan Bennett , Manel Sabaté , Giovanni Esposito , Eric Boersma , Eugene McFadden , Hector M. Garcia-Garcia , Nicolas M. Van Mieghem , Roberto Diletti , on behalf of the BIOVASC investigators\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijcard.2025.133496\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Recent randomized trials have suggested that immediate complete revascularization (ICR) is a viable alternative to staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease. However, long-term outcomes comparing ICR with SCR in ST-segment elevation (STE) and non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) ACS remain unclear.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This study analyzes 2-year follow-up data from the BIOVASC trial, randomizing ACS patients to ICR or SCR. The primary composite endpoint includes all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular events. Secondary endpoints evaluate these outcomes individually. Cox regression assessed if STE/NSTE-ACS diagnosis influences treatment effect.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In 608 STE-ACS patients, the 2-year cumulative incidence of the primary composite endpoint was 10.9 % (ICR) and 11.7 % (SCR) (risk difference [RD] 0.8 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] -4.3 % to 5.9 %; <em>P</em> = 0.71). In NSTE-ACS, cumulative incidence was 13.5 % (ICR) and 12.8 % (SCR) (RD −0.7 %, 95 % CI -5.1 % to 3.7 %; <em>P</em> = 0.90). No differential effect was observed comparing ICR with SCR between STE- and NSTE-ACS.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>ICR did not sustain a significant benefit in terms of the primary and secondary outcomes at 2 years follow-up. In addition, no differential effect of ICR versus SCR was observed between STE-ACS and NSTE-ACS after 2 years follow-up. However, there seems to be a late catch-up in the cumulative event rate in patients randomized to ICR.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13710,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of cardiology\",\"volume\":\"437 \",\"pages\":\"Article 133496\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016752732500539X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016752732500539X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Immediate versus staged complete revascularization in patients presenting with multivessel disease and ST- or non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome
Background
Recent randomized trials have suggested that immediate complete revascularization (ICR) is a viable alternative to staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease. However, long-term outcomes comparing ICR with SCR in ST-segment elevation (STE) and non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) ACS remain unclear.
Methods
This study analyzes 2-year follow-up data from the BIOVASC trial, randomizing ACS patients to ICR or SCR. The primary composite endpoint includes all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular events. Secondary endpoints evaluate these outcomes individually. Cox regression assessed if STE/NSTE-ACS diagnosis influences treatment effect.
Results
In 608 STE-ACS patients, the 2-year cumulative incidence of the primary composite endpoint was 10.9 % (ICR) and 11.7 % (SCR) (risk difference [RD] 0.8 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] -4.3 % to 5.9 %; P = 0.71). In NSTE-ACS, cumulative incidence was 13.5 % (ICR) and 12.8 % (SCR) (RD −0.7 %, 95 % CI -5.1 % to 3.7 %; P = 0.90). No differential effect was observed comparing ICR with SCR between STE- and NSTE-ACS.
Conclusions
ICR did not sustain a significant benefit in terms of the primary and secondary outcomes at 2 years follow-up. In addition, no differential effect of ICR versus SCR was observed between STE-ACS and NSTE-ACS after 2 years follow-up. However, there seems to be a late catch-up in the cumulative event rate in patients randomized to ICR.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Cardiology is devoted to cardiology in the broadest sense. Both basic research and clinical papers can be submitted. The journal serves the interest of both practicing clinicians and researchers.
In addition to original papers, we are launching a range of new manuscript types, including Consensus and Position Papers, Systematic Reviews, Meta-analyses, and Short communications. Case reports are no longer acceptable. Controversial techniques, issues on health policy and social medicine are discussed and serve as useful tools for encouraging debate.