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) >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.

Aims We hypothesized that the modified Diamond–Forrester (D-F) prediction model overestimates probability of coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of this study was to update the prediction model based on pre-test information and assess the model’s performance in predicting prognosis in an unselected, contemporary population suspected of angina. Methods and results We included 3903 consecutive patients free of CAD and heart failure and suspected of angina, who were referred to a single centre for assessment in 2012–15. Obstructive CAD was defined from invasive angiography as lesion requiring revascularization, >70% stenosis or fractional flow reserve <0.8. Patients were followed (mean follow-up 33 months) for myocardial infarction, unstable angina, heart failure, stroke, and death. The updated D-F prediction model overestimated probability considerably: mean pre-test probability was 31.4%, while only 274 (7%) were diagnosed with obstructive CAD. A basic prediction model with age, gender, and symptoms demonstrated good discrimination with C-statistics of 0.86 (95% CI 0.84–0.88), while a clinical prediction model adding diabetes, family history, and dyslipidaemia slightly improved the C-statistic to 0.88 (0.86–0.90) (P for difference between models <0.0001). Quartiles of probability of CAD from the clinical prediction model provided good diagnostic and prognostic stratification: in the lowest quartiles there were no cases of obstructive CAD and cumulative risk of the composite endpoint was less than 3% at 2 years. Conclusion The pre-test probability model recommended in current ESC guidelines substantially overestimates likelihood of CAD when applied to a contemporary, unselected, all-comer population. We provide an updated prediction model that identifies subgroups with low likelihood of obstructive CAD and good prognosis in which non-invasive testing may safely be deferred.

No abstract