Achieving lipid targets within 12 months of an acute coronary syndrome: an observational analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess lipid levels in people six or 12 months after hospitalisation with acute coronary syndrome (ACS); to identify factors associated with not achieving lipid level targets. DESIGN, SETTING: Retrospective cohort study; analysis of data from CONCORDANCE, an Australian ACS registry, 2009-2018. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients who had experienced confirmed ACS of cardiovascular origin, for whom serum lipid levels had been assessed on admission and six or 12 months after discharge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Not achieving lipid targets by most recent follow-up (in order of priority: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] ≤ 1.8 mmol/L or total cholesterol ≤ 4 mmol/L); factors associated with not achieving target lipid levels. RESULTS: Lipid levels measured at 6- or 12-month follow-up were available for 2671 of 10 578 people discharged from hospital alive; 1194 (45%) had not achieved lipid targets at their most recent follow-up, including 876 (73%) who had been prescribed intensive lipid-lowering therapy at discharge. People under 65 years of age, those using lipid-lowering therapy or with higher cholesterol levels on admission, patients prescribed fewer than four evidence-based therapies or not prescribed intensive lipid-lowering therapy on discharge, and women were more likely to not reach lipid level targets. CONCLUSION: Almost half the patients did not achieve target lipid levels within 12 months of an admission to hospital with ACS. These people are at elevated risk of recurrent cardiovascular disease, and therapy could be optimised (eg, dose escalation, drug combinations, novel therapies) to improve outcomes.

Revascularization Strategies in Patients With STEMI: Culprit-Only vs Multivessel Revascularization Using Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% of patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have multivessel coronary disease (MVD). Evidence on the best PCI approach for these patients is conflicting. The aim of this study is to examine Australian data from the CONCORDANCE registry to describe the practice and outcomes of patients receiving multivessel vs culprit-only PCI. METHODS: Two cohorts were constructed from MVD-STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI at 41 hospitals between 2009 and 2015: culprit-only PCI (n = 587; 87%) and multivessel PCI (n = 82; 12%). Clinical characteristics were described, and the outcomes were all-cause mortality, heart failure, and myocardial reinfarction, in-hospital and at 6-month follow-up. The relative prevalence of each procedure over time was also described. RESULTS: The patient cohorts were comparable in age, sex, and cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with higher Killip scores were more likely to receive multivessel PCI (P=.02). The multivessel group was significantly more likely to have in-hospital cardiogenic shock (P<.01), myocardial reinfarction (P=.02), cardiac arrest (P=.02), and stroke (P=.01). There was no difference in the incidence of ischemic events at 6 months, but the multivessel group had a lower rate of planned repeat revascularizations (12% vs 2%; P=.03). There was no difference in the relative frequency of multivessel vs culprit-only PCI during the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: The relative frequency of multivessel vs culprit-only PCI has not changed from 2009-2015. Index complete revascularization for STEMI-MVD patients is more likely to be performed in those with worse presentations and is associated with worse in-hospital complications.