A time-to-treatment analysis in the medicine versus angiography in thrombolytic exclusion (MATE) trial

Benefit of Early Invasive Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndromes

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to systematically determine whether early invasive therapy improves survival and reduces adverse cardiovascular events in the management of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND

Although early invasive therapy reduces recurrent unstable angina, the magnitude of benefit on other important adverse outcomes is unknown.

METHODS

Clinical trials that randomized non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients to early invasive therapy versus a more conservative approach were included for analysis.

RESULTS

In all there were 7 trials with 8,375 patients available for analysis. At a mean follow-up of 2 years, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 4.9% in the early invasive group, compared with 6.5% in the conservative group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 to 0.90, p = 0.001), and at 1 month (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.34, p = 0.43). At 2 years of follow-up, the incidence of nonfatal myocardial infarction was 7.6% in the invasive group, versus 9.1% in the conservative group (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96, p = 0.012), and at 1 month (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.19, p = 0.57). At a mean of 13 months of follow-up, there was a reduction in rehospitalization for unstable angina (RR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.74, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Managing non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes by early invasive therapy improves long-term survival and reduces late myocardial infarction and rehospitalization for unstable angina.

Long-term benefits of an early invasive management in acute coronary syndromes depend on intracoronary stenting and aggressive antiplatelet treatment: a metaregression

BACKGROUND

Although recent data support an early invasive management in acute coronary syndromes (ACS), overall evidence appears conflicting. We performed a metaregression to explore the impact of intracoronary stenting and aggressive antiplatelet treatment on the risk/benefit ratio of an early invasive approach.

METHODS

We searched several databases up to March 2004 for randomized trials comparing an early invasive versus delayed invasive or conservative management in ACS. Random-effects odds ratios were computed for death and/or myocardial infarction at the longest follow-up. Log (odds ratios) were tested for interaction with stenting and aggressive antiplatelet treatment (ie, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors or thienopyridines in addition to aspirin).

RESULTS

Ten trials (9990 patients, median follow-up 12 months) were pooled. Overall, an early invasive management was associated with significantly reduced rates of death or myocardial infarction (P = .01). Metaregression analysis showed that the 2 most significant predictors of the benefits of an early invasive strategy in patients with ACS on event-free survival were the use, in subjects managed invasively, of aggressive antiplatelet treatment (P = .005) and stenting (P = .011). Moreover, both stenting and aggressive antiplatelet treatment were significantly associated with reduced mortality (respectively, P = .014 and P = .009) and correlated to each other (r = 0.76, P = .010).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the benefits of an early invasive approach in patients with ACS are significantly associated with concomitant aggressive antiplatelet treatment and stenting. These findings thus suggest the overall superiority of an early invasive approach in ACS, as long as state-of-the-art therapies are implemented.

Invasive therapy along with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and intracoronary stents improves survival in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis and review of the literature

Current evidence suggests that routine invasive therapy in the setting of unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) reduces the incidence of composite end points (i.e., death, myocardial infarction, or angina.). The 2002 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend invasive therapy in high-risk patients, although it is unknown if such an approach improves survival. We conducted a meta-analysis on 5 studies in 6,766 UA/NSTEMI patients who were randomized to either routine invasive versus conservative therapy in the era of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and intracoronary stents. Compared with conservative therapy, an invasive approach suggested a reduction in mortality at 6 to 12 months (risk ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 to 1.03) and at 24 months (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99). The composite end point of death or myocardial infarction was reduced throughout all periods of follow-up: at 30 days (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.84), at 6 months (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.89), and at 12 months (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.92). For the same composite end point at 6 to 12 months, men benefited from invasive therapy (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.81), as did troponin-positive patients (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.94). The results for women (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41) and troponin-negative patients (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.14) were equivocal. Routine invasive therapy in UA/NSTEMI patients along with adjunctive use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and intracoronary stents improves survival. Enhanced risk stratification is needed in women and troponin-negative patients so that invasive therapy may be more effectively recommended in these groups.