Why the study?
Early initiation of intensive lipid-lowering therapy during ACS hospitalisation achieves greater LDL-C reduction than gradual up-titration. However, it remained unclear whether hospitalisation for elective coronary revascularisation represents a similar window of opportunity to optimise lipid management.
Does hospitalisation for elective coronary revascularisation result in similar rates of adequate lipid-lowering therapy prescription at discharge compared to hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome?
Does hospitalisation for elective coronary revascularisation result in similar rates of adequate lipid-lowering therapy prescription at discharge compared to hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome?
Lipid management during hospitalisation for coronary events is suboptimal, particularly for patients undergoing elective coronary revascularisation who are significantly less likely to be discharged on adequate lipid-lowering therapy than ACS patients.
Lower discharge lipid-lowering therapy rates in elective revascularisation warrant attention; leaves open effects on long-term outcomes.
Background After a coronary event, patients are at markedly elevated risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) representing an important component of residual risk. However, guideline-recommended LDL-C targets are not achieved in a considerable number of patients. Furthermore, in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), early initiation of intensive lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) during hospitalisation has been shown to result in greater LDL-C reduction compared with more gradual up-titration. However, it remains unclear whether hospitalisation for elective coronary revascularisation represents a similar ‘window of opportunity’ to optimise lipid management. Purpose To compare LDL-C management during hospitalisation for ACS versus elective coronary revascularisation. Methods We included consecutive patients hospitalised for ACS (ST- or non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI/NSTEMI], or unstable angina pectoris [uAP]) or elective coronary revascularisation (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands between June 2024 and February 2026. Patient characteristics, laboratory data (collected during index hospitalisation or within 6 months prior) and discharge medication prescriptions were extracted from electronic health records. LDL-C targets of <1.8 mmol/L (Dutch guideline) and <1.4 mmol/L (2019 ESC/EAS guideline) were evaluated. Adequate LLT was defined as treatment with a potency equivalent to or greater than a high-intensity statin combined with ezetimibe (i.e. ~ 60% LDL-C reduction). To account for baseline differences, elective coronary revascularisation patients were matched to ACS patients on age, sex, LDL-C at admission, and cardiovascular history. Results In 1,985 patients (27% female; median age 68 years [IQR 60–76]); 76% had ACS and 24% underwent elective coronary revascularisation. LDL-C at admission was <1.8 mmol/L in 19% of ACS patients and 24% of elective coronary revascularisation patients (Table 1). At discharge, adequate LLT was prescribed in 27% of ACS patients compared to 16% of elective coronary revascularisation patients (p<0.001). After matching (n=330 per group, 99% of elective patients with complete data) this LLT disparity remained (27% vs. 15%, p<0.001) (Figure 1). Conclusion In a contemporary large multicentre cohort, lipid management during hospitalisation for a coronary event remains suboptimal, with particular potential for improvement in elective coronary revascularisation patients. Strategies to improve adequate LLT during hospitalisation regardless of ACS or elective coronary revascularisation are urgently needed to improve secondary prevention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bogaart et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: