Background: The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation (non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI]) has recommended immediate (<2 h) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in very-high risk patients and early (<24 h) PCI in high-risk patients.Hypothesis: To examine the ESC NSTEMI guidelines adherence in a nationwide survey in Israel using the Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey (ACSIS). We hypothesized that adherence to the guidlines' recommnded PCI timing in NSTEMI pateints will be inadequate, partly due to the inconsistent evidence regarding its effect on clinical outcomes. Methods: All NSTEMI patients who underwent PCI during the ACSIS surveys in 2016 and 2018 were included in the analysis.Results: Out of 1793 NSTEMI patients, 1643 (92%) patients underwent PCI, and door to balloon time was documented in 1078 of them. One hundred and fifty-six (14.5%) patients and 922 (85.5%) patients were defined as very high-risk and highrisk NSTEMI patients, respectively. Of the very high-risk NSTEMI patients, only 10 (6.4%) underwent immediate coronary angiography, and 50 (32.1%) underwent early coronary angiography. Acute heart failure 139 (89.1%) was the main reason for including NSTEMI patients in the very high-risk category. Of the high-risk patients, early coronary angiography was performed in only 405 (43.9%) patients. Patients in whom coronary angiography was postponed were older and had more comorbidities.Conclusions: Despite guidelines recommendations for immediate and early PCI in very high-risk and high-risk NSTEMI patients, respectively, most patients do not

No abstract

(1) Background: High bleeding risk is associated with adverse outcomes in ACS patients. We aimed to evaluate temporal trends in treatment and outcomes of ACS patients according to bleeding risk. (2) Methods: Included were ACS patients enrolled in ACSIS surveys. Patients were divided into three groups according to enrolment period: early (2002–2004), mid (2006–2010) and recent (2012–2018). Each group was further stratified into three subgroups according to CRUSADE bleeding risk score. The primary endpoints were 30-day MACE and 1-year all-cause mortality. (3) Results: Included were 13,058 ACS patients. High bleeding risk patients were less frequently treated with guideline-based medications and coronary revascularization. They also had higher rates of 30-day MACE and 1-year all-cause mortality regardless of the enrollment period. Among patients enrolled in early period, 30-day MACE rates were 10.8%, 17.5% and 24.3% (p < 0.001) and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were 2%, 7.7% and 23.6% (p < 0.001) in the low, moderate and high bleeding risk groups, respectively. Among patients enrolled in mid period, 30-day MACE rates were 7.7%, 13.4% and 23.5% (p < 0.001) and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were 1.5%, 7.2% and 22.1% (p < 0.001) in low, moderate and high bleeding risk groups, respectively. For patients enrolled in recent period, 30-day MACE rates were 5.7%, 8.6% and 16.2%, (p < 0.001) and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were 2.1%, 6% and 22.4%, (p < 0.001) in low, moderate and high bleeding risk groups, respectively. These differences remained significant following a multivariate analysis. (4) Conclusions: The percentage of patients at high bleeding risk has decreased over the last years. Despite recent improvements in the treatment of ACS patients, high bleeding risk remains a strong predictor of adverse outcomes.