Why the study?
To compare immediate complete revascularization and staged complete revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, stratified by gender.
Does immediate complete revascularization improve outcomes compared to staged complete revascularization in women and men with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease?
Does immediate complete revascularization improve outcomes compared to staged complete revascularization in women and men with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease?
Immediate complete revascularization shows similar efficacy and safety compared to staged complete revascularization in both men and women presenting with ACS and multivessel disease, with no significant gender-based treatment interaction.
Supports equivalent revascularization strategies across genders in ACS with multivessel disease; confirms absence of sex-treatment interaction in this RCT.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elscot et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: