Practice of percutaneous coronary interventions in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (based on the CONTRAST registry data)

Aim. To assess real-world practice in the use of invasive diagnostic and treatment methods in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) within the registry of the regional vascular centre.
Material and methods. The study included 136 patients consecutively admitted on an emergency basis to the vascular center in Sergiyev Posad between October 2018 and March 2019 with a diagnosis of NSTE-ACS. The mean age was 63±11 years, and 61% were male.
Results. All patients underwent coronary angiography (CAG) as soon as possible after hospital admission (less than 2 hours). None of the patients had absolute contraindications for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). All 136 patients were divided into 3 groups based on the chosen invasive treatment strategy: patients who did not undergo PCI at the inpatient stage of treatment and with long-term follow-up — 69 people (50.7%; group 1); patients who underwent PCI during the current hospitalisation — 50 people (36.8%; group 2); patients who underwent delayed PCI after the current hospitalisation — 17 people (12.5%; group 3). The decision to perform PCI was not influenced by the disease patterns or the GRACE risk score. The results of the CAG showed that patients in group 3 had three-vessel coronary artery disease significantly more often than in groups 1 and 2 (59% vs 22% and 34%, p=0.001). Regression analysis showed that the detection of damage to only one coronary artery significantly increased the likelihood of PCI. This probability progressively decreased as the extent of CAD increased.
Conclusion. In the regional vascular centre, in-hospital PCI was performed in only 36% of patients diagnosed with NSTE-ACS. When deciding on PCI, physicians were primarily guided not by the degree of risk of cardiovascular complications, as required by clinical guidelines, but rather by the technical feasibility and safety of the procedure.

1. Grines CL, Browne KF, Marco J, et al. A comparison of immediate angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. The Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(10):673-9. DOI:10.1056/NEJM199303113281001.

2. Huynh T, Perron S, O’Loughlin J, et al. Comparison of primary percutaneous coronary intervention and fibrinolytic therapy in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: bayesian hierarchical meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Circulation. 2009;119(24):3101-9. DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.793745.

3. Hall M, Dondo TB, Yan AT, et al. Association of Clinical Factors and Therapeutic Strategies With Improvements in Survival Following Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction, 2003-2013. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1073-82. DOI:10.1001/jama.2016.10766.

4. Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP, et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2016;37(3):267-315. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv320.

5. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(24):e139-228. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.017. Erratum in: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(24):2713- 4. Dosage error in article text.

6. Sagaydak OV, Oshchepkova EV, Popova YuV, et al. Treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome in 2019 (data from fe deral registry of acute coronary syndrome). Kardiologicheskii Vestnik. 2020;(3):37-45. (In Russ.) DOI:10.36396/MS.2020.16.3.005

7. Li SY, Zhou MG, Ye T. Frequency of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment myocardial infarction, and unstable angina: Results from a Southwest Chinese Registry. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2021;22(1):239-45. DOI:10.31083/j.rcm.2021.01.103.

8. Fladseth K, Wilsgaard T, Lindekleiv H, et al. Outcomes after coronary angiography for unstable angina compared to stable angina, myocardial infarction and an asymptomatic general population. Int J Cardiol Hear Vasc. 2022;42:101099. DOI:10.1016/j.ijcha.2022.101099.

9. Berns SA, Shmidt EA, Nagirnyak OA, et al. Assessment of Outcomes and Treatment Tactics in Patients With NonSTElevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: Data of FiveYear Followup. Kardiologiia. 2018;58(7):32-40 (In Rus.) DOI:10.18087/cardio.2018.7.10141.

10. Martsevich SYu, Lukina YuV, Kutishenko NP, et al. Medical registers. Role in evidence- based medicine. Guidelines for creation. Methodological guidelines. Moscow: Federal State Budgetary Institution “NMRC TPM” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; OOO “Silitseya-Polygraf”. 2023. (In Russ.) [ DOI:10.15829/ROPNIZ-m1-2023.

11. Averkov OV, Harutyunyan GK, Duplyakov DV, et al. 2024 Clinical practice guidelines for Acute coronary syndrome without ST segment elevation electrocardiogram. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2025;30(5):6319. (In Russ.) DOI:10.15829/1560-4071-2025-6319. EDN: CXJUIB.

12. Budzianowski J, Faron W, Rzeźniczak J, et al. Predictors of Revascularization in Patients with Unstable Angina. J Clin Med. 2024;13(4):1096. DOI:10.3390/jcm13041096.

13. Case BC, Weintraub WS. Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: When Is Rapid Revascularization Critical? J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10(19):e023645. DOI:10.1161/JAHA.121.023645.

14. Wijeysundera HC, Sidhu MS, Bennell MC, et al. Predictors of Initial Revascularization Versus Medical Therapy Alone in Patients With NonST-Segment-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing an Invasive Strategy. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(7):e003592. DOI:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003592.