METHODS: EPICOR Asia (NCT01361386) is a prospective study of hospital survivors post-ACS enrolled in 218 hospitals from 8 countries/regions in Asia (06/2011-05/2012). All medically managed NSTE-ACS patients were classified into 3 groups: 1) no coronary angiography (CAG-); 2) non-significant coronary artery disease (CAD) on angiogram (CAG+ CAD-); and 3) significant CAD (CAG+ CAD+). We compared baseline differences between patients medically managed and patients undergoing revascularization, and also between the medically managed groups. Adverse events were reported and compared up to 2years.

RESULTS: Of 6163 NSTE-ACS patients, 2272 (37%) were medically managed, with 1339 (59%), 254 (11%), and 679 (30%) in the CAG-, CAG+ CAD-, and CAG+ CAD+ groups, respectively. There were marked differences in the proportion of medically managed patients among the 8 countries/regions (13-81%). Medically managed patients had higher mortality at 2years compared with revascularization (8.7% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001). Among medically managed patients, CAG- patients were older, more likely to have pre-existing cardiovascular disease, and had the highest 2-year mortality (10.5% vs. 4.3% [CAG+ CAD-] and 6.6% [CAG+ CAD+], p<0.001). Mortality differences persisted after adjusting for other patient risk factors.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the capacity of FFR-CT and CCTA to rule out significant lesions in high-risk NSTE-ACS patients, using ICA with invasive FFR as the gold standard.

METHODS: High-risk NSTE-ACS patients admitted to 4 European centres were enrolled in this single-arm, prospective core lab-adjudicated study. Patients underwent CCTA with FFR-CT analysis, followed by ICA with invasive FFR.

RESULTS: Out of the 250 initially planned NSTE-ACS patients, 168 were included, of whom 151 (92%) had sufficient CCTA image quality to undergo CCTA and FFR-CT analysis. The median high-sensitivity troponin T level at 1 hour post-hospitalisation was 5.3 (interquartile range: 1.8-18.6) times the upper reference limit. At the patient level, the diagnostic performance of FFR-CT was numerically higher as compared to CCTA though not statistically significant (sensitivity: 94% vs 93%, specificity: 63% vs 54%, positive predictive value: 83% vs 79%, negative predictive value: 85% vs 80% and accuracy: 83% vs 79%; p=0.58), suggesting an enhanced capability to avoid unnecessary ICA. At the lesion level, the ability of FFR-CT to detect significant lesions was significantly better than that of CCTA (receiver operating characteristic curves: 0.84 vs 0.65 respectively; p<0.01).