Protocol-Based Implementation of Early Intensive Lipid Management After Acute Coronary Syndrome: The BRIDGE Trial
In brief
Protocol-driven intensive lipid therapy lifts LDL-C < 70 mg/dL achievement to 86% versus 74% after ACS
In a cluster-randomized trial of 315 ACS patients, a prespecified algorithm for early high-intensity statin, ezetimibe, and PCSK9-inhibitor use raised the proportion reaching LDL-C < 70 mg/dL at six months from 74% to 86% (12-point absolute gain). The same approach more than doubled attainment of the stricter < 55 mg/dL target, suggesting that structured, hospital-based protocols can close the gap between guidelines and real-world lipid control.
- Journal
- Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Q1)
- Published
- 31 August 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Kazuma Oyama, Jun Takahashi, Takahiro Funaki, Shunsuke Oyamada, Satoru Horiguchi, Akihiro Nakamura, et al.
- PMID
- 42671370
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jacc.2026.08.026
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Family Practice (top studies of the week, 1 November 2026): Protocol-based early intensive lipid management after ACS
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although guideline-recommended intensive lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) reduces recurrent cardiovascular events after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), timely implementation of intensive LLT and achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target remain suboptimal in routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a protocol-based implementation strategy improves timely achievement of guideline-recommended LDL-C target after ACS. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial involving patients with ACS. Ten centers were randomly assigned 1:1 to protocol-based or standard lipid management. In the protocol-based group, LLT was initiated or intensified during the index hospitalization according to a prespecified algorithm based on baseline LLT status and LDL-C levels using high-intensity statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibitors. LDL-C was reassessed at 4 weeks, with treatment escalation when indicated. In the protocol-based group, an LDL-C level of approximately 55 mg/dL was used as the protocol-specified operational threshold for intensification, whereas LDL-C <70 mg/dL was the treatment goal in both groups. The primary and key secondary endpoints were achievement of LDL-C <70 mg/dL and <55 mg/dL at 6 months, respectively. RESULTS: Between November 2024 and July 2025, 330 patients were enrolled, and 329 patients comprised the study population after 1 patient withdrew consent. The primary efficacy analysis included 315 patients with complete 6-month LDL-C data. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. The mean age was 69 years, 18% were women, and the median LDL-C level was 110 mg/dL. At 6 months, LDL-C <70 mg/dL was achieved in 86.4% vs 73.7% (between-group difference, 12.6 percentage points [95% CI: 3.8-21.5 percentage points]; P = 0.005); the corresponding difference was 12.8 percentage points (95% CI: -2.0 to 27.6 percentage points; P = 0.08) in a hospital-level sensitivity analysis. Similar findings were observed for LDL-C <55 mg/dL (60.8% vs 34.5%; between-group difference, 26.3 percentage points [95% CI: 18.5-34.0 percentage points]; P < 0.001). At 6 months, use of high-intensity statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibitors was higher in the protocol-based group. CONCLUSIONS: A protocol-based implementation strategy for early intensive LLT significantly improved achievement of the guideline-recommended LDL-C target after ACS. These findings support a structured, algorithm-based care pathway to facilitate timely initiation and intensification of LLT and improve implementation of guideline-recommended lipid management in routine clinical practice. (Brief and Protocol-Based Intensive Lipid Management in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome; jRCT1020240029).
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.