Complete Revascularization Strategies in Women and Men With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease

Jacob J. Elscot, Hala Kakar, Wijnand K.den Dekker, Johan Bennett, Manel Sabaté, Giovanni Esposito, Joost Daemen, Eric Boersma, Nicolas M. Van Mieghem, Roberto Diletti*, BIOVASC Investigators

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
28 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This prespecified substudy of the randomized Percutaneous Complete Revascularization Strategies Using Sirolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Coated Stents in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease (BIOVASC) trial aimed to compare immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, stratified by gender. The primary end point consisted of a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular events at 1-year follow-up. The secondary end points included the individual components of the primary composite and major bleedings. We used Cox regression models to relate randomized treatment with study end points. We evaluated the multiplicative and additive interactions between gender and randomized treatment. The BIOVASC trial enrolled 338 women and 1,187 men. Women were older than men (median age 71.6 vs 63.7 years, p <0.001) and had a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10.1% vs 5.6%, p = 0.003), renal insufficiency (7.7% vs 4.4%, p = 0.015), and hypertension (60.4% vs 51.7%, p = 0.005). In women, the composite primary outcome occurred in 7.3% versus 12.9% (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 1.08) in patients randomly allocated to ICR and SCR, respectively, and in men in 7.7% versus 8.4% (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.34), with no evidence of a differential effect (interaction pmultiplicative = 0.20, padditive = 0.87). No evidence of heterogeneity between women and men was found when comparing ICR with SCR in terms of the secondary outcomes. In conclusion, no differential treatment effect was found when comparing ICR versus SCR in women or men presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)25-32
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Cardiology
Volume214
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Complete Revascularization Strategies in Women and Men With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this