American Society of Hirudotherapy

Outcomes of patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting and acute coronary syndromes: analysis from the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial

Randomized controlled trial published in JACC. Cardiovascular interventions (2012)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Randomized controlled trialClinical TrialsDrug DevelopmentSafety & Infection ControlSalivary PharmacologyNikolsky E et al. · JACC. Cardiovascular interventions, 2012

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the contemporary outcomes of patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) who present with moderate and high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and are treated with an early invasive strategy and contemporary antithrombin regimens. BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with ACS and prior CABG in relation to triage strategy and contemporary antithrombotic regimens is unknown. METHODS: In the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial, 2,475 of 13,764 patients (18.0%) with ACS managed with an early invasive strategy had previously undergone CABG. Their outcomes were examined according to treatment and randomized antithrombin regimen. RESULTS: Prior CABG was associated with older age, more frequent comorbidities, higher Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction risk score, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. Patients with versus without prior CABG were less likely to undergo (repeat) CABG and were more likely to be managed medically. At 1 year, patients with versus without prior CABG had higher rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (22.5% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.0001) due to greater mortality (5.4% vs. 3.9%, p < 0.0001), myocardial infarction (10.0% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.0001), and unplanned revascularization (13.1% vs. 8.2%, p < 0.0001). History of CABG was an independent predictor of MACE. The 1-year MACE rates were not significantly different after randomization to bivalirudin versus heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (odds ratio: 1.24, 95% confidence interval: 0.90 to 1.70). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the progress in the treatment of coronary artery disease, patients with prior CABG and ACS have a poor prognosis, substantially worse than for those without prior CABG. Whereas bivalirudin monotherapy was an acceptable treatment for these patients, it did not improve their prognoses.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled Trial
Indexed MeSH termsAcute Coronary SyndromeAgedAnticoagulantsComorbidityCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery BypassFemaleFibrinolytic AgentsHeparinHirudinsHumansKaplan-Meier Estimate

Summary

This study sought to assess the contemporary outcomes of patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) who present with moderate and high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and are treated with an early invasive strategy and contemporary antithrombin regimens.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This analysis from the ACUITY trial compared outcomes in 2,475 of 13,764 ACS patients (18.0%) with prior CABG versus those without, examining the effect of randomization to bivalirudin monotherapy versus heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. Prior CABG patients had significantly higher 1-year MACE rates (22.5% vs. 15.2%), and bivalirudin monotherapy was acceptable but did not improve prognosis compared to heparin plus GPI. Bivalirudin, indexed under 'Hirudins' in MeSH, provides an indirect pharmacological link to ASH's domain as a hirudin-based direct thrombin inhibitor. The study is a randomized trial subgroup analysis with no direct relevance to therapeutic leeching.

Citation

Outcomes of patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting and acute coronary syndromes: analysis from the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial

Nikolsky E et al. · JACC. Cardiovascular interventions, 2012

Added to ASH library: May 27, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.