Immediate versus deferred coronary angioplasty in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes

A comprehensive guide on the optimal timing of PCI in the setting of acute coronary syndrome: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Invasive revascularization is recommended for cohorts of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). However, the optimal timing of invasive revascularization is still controversial and no defined consensus is established. We aim to give a comprehensive appraisal on the optimal timing of invasive strategy in the heterogenous population of ACS.

METHODS

Relevant studies were assessed through PubMed, Scopus, Web of science, and Cochrane Library from inception until April 2023. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality were our primary outcomes of interest, other secondary outcomes were cardiac death, TVR, MI, repeat revascularization, recurrent ischemia, and major bleeding. The data was pooled as odds ratio (OR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random effect model using STATA 17 MP.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies comprising 21,443 patients were included in the analysis. Early intervention was favor to decrease all-cause mortality (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.98, p = 0.03), when compared to delayed intervention. Subgroup analysis showed that early intervention was significantly associated with all-cause mortality reduction in only NSTE-ACS (OR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.7 to 0.99], p = 0.04). However, there was no significant difference between early and delayed intervention in terms of MACE, cardiac death, TVR, MI, repeat revascularization, recurrent ischemia, and major bleeding.

CONCLUSION

An early intervention was associated with lower mortality rates compared to delayed intervention in NSTE-ACS with no significant difference in other clinical outcomes. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023415574.

Timing of invasive strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aims

The optimal timing of an invasive strategy (IS) in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is controversial. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term follow-up data have yet to be included in a contemporary meta-analysis.

Methods and results

A systematic review of RCTs that compared an early IS vs. delayed IS for NSTE-ACS was conducted by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A meta-analysis was performed by pooling relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), recurrent ischaemia, admission for heart failure (HF), repeat re-vascularization, major bleeding, stroke, and length of hospital stay. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021246131). Seventeen RCTs with outcome data from 10 209 patients were included. No significant differences in risk for all-cause mortality [RR: 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78–1.04], MI (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.63–1.16), admission for HF (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.43–1.03), repeat re-vascularization (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.88–1.23), major bleeding (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.68–1.09), or stroke (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.59–1.54) were observed. Recurrent ischaemia (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.40–0.81) and length of stay (median difference: −22 h, 95% CI: −36.7 to −7.5 h) were reduced with an early IS.

Conclusion

In all-comers with NSTE-ACS, an early IS does not reduce all-cause mortality, MI, admission for HF, repeat re-vascularization, or increase major bleeding or stroke when compared with a delayed IS. Risk of recurrent ischaemia and length of stay are significantly reduced with an early IS.

Very early invasive angiography versus standard of care in higher-risk non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: study protocol for the prospective multicentre randomised controlled RAPID N-STEMI trial

BACKGROUND

There are a paucity of randomised data on the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in higher-risk patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (N-STEMI). International guideline recommendations for early ICA are primarily based on retrospective subgroup analyses of neutral trials.

AIMS

The RAPID N-STEMI trial aims to determine whether very early percutaneous revascularisation improves clinical outcomes as compared with a standard of care strategy in higher-risk N-STEMI patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

RAPID N-STEMI is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised-controlled, pragmatic strategy trial. Higher-risk N-STEMI patients, as defined by Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events 2.0 score ≥118, or >90 with at least one additional high-risk feature, were randomised to either: very early ICA±revascularisation or standard of care timing of ICA±revascularisation. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with at least one of the following events (all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction and hospital admission for heart failure) at 12 months. Key secondary outcomes include major bleeding and stroke. A hypothesis generating cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) substudy will provide mechanistic data on infarct size, myocardial salvage and residual ischaemia post percutaneous coronary intervention. On 7 April 2021, the sponsor discontinued enrolment due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and lower than expected event rates. 425 patients were enrolled, and 61 patients underwent CMR.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has been reviewed and approved by the East of England Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (18/EE/0222). The study results will be submitted for publication within 6 months of completion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03707314; Pre-results.

Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Review of the Literature and a Case Series

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is still associated with high mortality and severe complications, despite major treatment advances in this field. Ischemic heart disease is a common cause of OHCA, and current guidelines clearly recommend performing immediate coronary angiography (CAG) in patients whose post-resuscitation electrocardiogram shows ST-segment elevation (STE). Contrarily, the optimal approach and the advantage of early revascularization in cases of no STE is less clear, and decisions are often based on the individual experience of the center. Numerous studies have been conducted on this topic and have provided contradictory evidence; however, more recently, results from several randomized clinical trials have suggested that performing early CAG has no impact on overall survival in patients without STE.

ANMCO POSITION PAPER: Timing of coronary angiography in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes suggest different temporal strategies for the angiographic study depending on the risk profile. The scientific evidence underlying the guideline recommendations and the critical issues currently existing in Italy, that often do not allow either an extended strategy of revascularization within 24 h or the application of the principle of the same day transfer from a spoke to a hub centre, are analysed. The position paper focuses, in particular, on the subgroup of patients with a defined diagnosis of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction by proposing a timing of coronary angiography/revascularization that takes into account the available scientific evidence and the organizational possibilities of a considerable part of national cardiology services.

One-year mortality in NSTEMI patients is unaffected by timing of PCI within the first week of admission: Results of a real-world cohort analysis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to explore the impact of time to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (T2P) on 1-year mortality in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients.

BACKGROUND

The current guidelines recommend an early invasive strategy for NSTEMI patients. However, impact of an early invasive strategy on mortality is a matter of debate. For that reason, real world data are of great value to determine the optimal treatment window.

METHODS

This retrospective single center cohort study was performed in a high-volume PCI center in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Intermediate- and high-risk NSTEMI patients undergoing PCI were included. The main discriminant was timing of PCI after admission (T2P), stratified according to different time windows (<24 h, 24-72 h, 72 h-7 days or >7 days). We analyzed 1-year mortality and the time distribution of overall survival.

RESULTS

In total, 848 patients treated between January 1, 2016 and January 1, 2018 were included in the analysis. T2P was <24 h in 145 patients, 24-72 h in 192 patients, 72 h-7 days in 275 patients, and >7 days in 236 patients. The mean GRACE-risk score was 127.1 (SD 28.7), 130.0 (33.1), 133.8 (32.1), and 148.7 (34.6) respectively, p = <0.001. After adjusting for confounders, 1-year mortality in patients with T2P <24 h did not significantly differ when compared with T2P 24-72 h (OR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.33-3.51) and T2P 72 h-7 days (OR 1.72; 95% CI = 0.57-5.21) but was significantly higher in T2P >7 days (OR = 3.20; 95% CI = 1.06-9.68).

CONCLUSIONS

In an unselected cohort of patients with NSTEMI, treatment by PCI <24 h did not lead to improved survival as compared to aT2P <7 days strategy. Delay in PCI >7 days after admission resulted in worse outcome.

Early invasive versus non-invasive assessment in patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) comprises a broad spectrum of disease ranging from unstable angina to myocardial infarction. International guidelines recommend a routine invasive strategy for managing patients with NSTE-ACS at high to very high-risk, supported by evidence of improved composite ischaemic outcomes as compared with a selective invasive strategy. However, accurate diagnosis of NSTE-ACS in the acute setting is challenging due to the spectrum of non-coronary disease that can manifest with similar symptoms. Heterogeneous clinical presentations and limited uptake of risk prediction tools can confound physician decision-making regarding the use and timing of invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Large proportions of patients with suspected NSTE-ACS do not require revascularisation but may unnecessarily undergo ICA with its attendant risks and associated costs. Advances in coronary CT angiography and cardiac MRI have prompted evaluation of whether non-invasive strategies may improve patient selection, or whether tailored approaches are better suited to specific subgroups. Future directions include (1) better understanding of risk stratification as a guide to investigation and therapy in suspected NSTE-ACS, (2) randomised clinical trials of non-invasive imaging versus standard of care approaches prior to ICA and (3) defining the optimal timing of very early ICA in high-risk NSTE-ACS.

An immediate or early invasive strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: The OPTIMA-2 randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In intermediate- and high-risk non-ST elevated acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients, a routine invasive approach is recommended. The timing of coronary angiography remains controversial. To assess whether an immediate (<3 hours) invasive treatment strategy would reduce infarct size and is safe, compared with an early strategy (12-24 hours), for patients admitted with NSTE-ACS while preferably treated with ticagrelor.

METHODS

In this single-center, prospective, randomized trial an immediate or early invasive strategy was randomly assigned to patients with NSTE-ACS. At admission, the patients were preferably treated with a combination of aspirin, ticagrelor and fondaparinux. The primary endpoint was the infarct size as measured by area under the curve (AUC) of CK-MB in 48 hours. Secondary endpoints were bleeding outcomes and major adverse cardiac events (MACE): composite of all-cause death, MI and unplanned revascularization. Interim analysis showed futility regarding the primary endpoint and trial inclusion was terminated.

RESULTS

In total 249 patients (71% of planned) were included. The primary endpoint of in-hospital infarct size was a median AUC of CK-MB 186.2 ng/mL in the immediate group (IQR 112-618) and 201.3 ng/mL in the early group (IQR 119-479). Clinical follow-up was 1-year. The MACE-rate was 10% in the immediate and 10% in the early group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, 95% CI: 0.52-2.49).

CONCLUSIONS

In NSTE-ACS patients randomized to either an immediate or an early-invasive strategy the observed median difference in the primary endpoint was about half the magnitude of the expected difference. The trial was terminated early for futility after 71% of the projected enrollment had been randomized into the trial.

Prognostic benefit from an early invasive strategy in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS): evaluation of the new risk stratification in the NSTEACS European guidelines

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our work is to evaluate the prognostic benefit of an early invasive strategy in patients with high-risk NSTACS according to the recommendations of the 2020 clinical practice guidelines during long-term follow-up.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included 6454 consecutive NSTEACS patients. We analyze the effects of early coronary angiography (< 24 h) in patients with: (a) GRACE risk score > 140 and (b) patients with "established NSTEMI" (non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction defined by an increase in troponins) or dynamic ST-T-segment changes with a GRACE risk score < 140.

RESULTS

From 2003 to 2017, 6454 patients with "new high-risk NSTEACS" were admitted, and 6031 (93.45%) of these underwent coronary angiography. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, the long-term cumulative probability of being free of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and MACE differed significantly due to an early coronary intervention in patients with NSTEACS and GRACE > 140 [HR 0.62 (IC 95% 0.57-0.67), HR 0.62 (IC 95% 0.56-0.68), HR 0.57 (IC 95% 0.53-0.61), respectively]. In patients with NSTEACS and GRACE < 140 with established NSTEMI or ST/T-segment changes, the benefit of the early invasive strategy is only observed in the reduction of MACE [HR 0.62 (IC 95% 0.56-0.68)], but not for total mortality [HR 0.96 (IC 95% 0.78-1.2)] and cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.96 (IC 95% 0.75-1.24)].

CONCLUSIONS

An early invasive management is associated with reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and MACE in NSTEACS with high GRACE risk score. However, this benefit is less evident in the subgroup of patients with a GRACE score < 140 with established NSTEMI or ST/T-segment changes.

Coronary Angiography After Cardiac Arrest Without ST Segment Elevation: One-Year Outcomes of the COACT Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Ischemic heart disease is a common cause of cardiac arrest. However, randomized data on long-term clinical outcomes of immediate coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients successfully resuscitated from cardiac arrest in the absence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are lacking.

Objective

To determine whether immediate coronary angiography improves clinical outcomes at 1 year in patients after cardiac arrest without signs of STEMI, compared with a delayed coronary angiography strategy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A prespecified analysis of a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluated 552 patients who were enrolled in 19 Dutch centers between January 8, 2015, and July 17, 2018. The study included patients who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a shockable rhythm who were successfully resuscitated without signs of STEMI. Follow-up was performed at 1 year. Data were analyzed, using the intention-to-treat principle, between August 29 and October 10, 2019.

Interventions

Immediate coronary angiography and PCI if indicated or coronary angiography and PCI if indicated, delayed until after neurologic recovery.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Survival, myocardial infarction, revascularization, implantable cardiac defibrillator shock, quality of life, hospitalization for heart failure, and the composite of death or myocardial infarction or revascularization after 1 year.

Results

At 1 year, data on 522 of 552 patients (94.6%) were available for analysis. Of these patients, 413 were men (79.1%); mean (SD) age was 65.4 (12.3) years. A total of 162 of 264 patients (61.4%) in the immediate angiography group and 165 of 258 patients (64.0%) in the delayed angiography group were alive (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.63-1.28). The composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, or repeated revascularization since the index hospitalization was met in 112 patients (42.9%) in the immediate group and 104 patients (40.6%) in the delayed group (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.77-1.56). No significant differences between the groups were observed for the other outcomes at 1-year follow-up. For example, the rate of ICD shocks was 20.4% in the immediate group and 16.2% in the delayed group (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.66-2.64).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this trial of patients successfully resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and without signs of STEMI, a strategy of immediate angiography was not found to be superior to a strategy of delayed angiography with respect to clinical outcomes at 1 year. Coronary angiography in this patient group can therefore be delayed until after neurologic recovery without affecting outcomes.

Trial Registration

trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR4973.

Relation of Timing of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Outcomes in Patients With Non-ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

International guidelines suggest revascularization within 24 hours in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Within a large population cohort study, we aimed to explore clinical practice regarding timing targets for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in NSTEMI. The Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry was established in 2013 as a state-wide clinical quality registry, pooling data from public and private PCI capable centers. Data were collected on 11,852 PCIs performed for NSTEMI from 2014 to 2018. Patients were divided into 3 groups by time of symptom onset to PCI (<24 hours; 24 to 72 hours; >72 hours). We performed multivariable logistic regression analysis conditional on several baseline covariates in investigating the impact of timing of PCI in NSTEMI on clinical outcomes. Patients who underwent PCI within 24 hours represented 18.4% (n = 2,178); 24 to 72 hours 45.8% (n = 5,434); >72 hours 35.8% (n = 4,240). Patients waiting longer for PCI were older (62.6 ± 12.2 vs 64.8 ± 12.6 vs 67.0 ± 12.7, p <0.001), more likely to be female (23.1% vs 24.2% vs 26.4%, p = 0.007), and have diabetes (18.6% vs 21.1% vs 27.1%, p <0.001). Multivariate logistic regression found that as compared with PCI <24 hours, PCI 24 to 72 hours and PCI >72 hours of symptom onset were associated with a decreased risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio 0.55; 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.86, p = 0.008 and odds ratio 0.64; 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 1.01, p = 0.053, respectively). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between groups following exclusion of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock or out of hospital cardiac arrest requiring intubation. In conclusion, many registry patients undergo PCI outside the 24-hour window following NSTEMI. This delay is at odds with current guideline recommendations but does not appear to be associated with an increased mortality risk.

Early invasive strategy for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) benefit from coronary intervention, but the optimal timing for an invasive strategy is not well defined. This study aimed to determine whether an early invasive strategy (<12 hours) is superior to a delayed invasive strategy.

METHODS

Twelve studies of nine randomized, controlled trials of 8586 patients were included.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in all-cause death (risk ratio [95% confidence interval]) (0.90, [0.77-1.06), re-myocardial infarction (re-MI) (0.95 [0.70-1.29]), major bleeding (0.97 [0.77-1.23]), and refractory ischemia (0.74 [0.53-1.05]) when we compared use of early and delayed invasive strategies. Furthermore, analysis of the effect of the chosen strategy on high-risk patients showed that the rate of composite death or re-MI was significantly decreased in patients with either a Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score >140 or with elevated troponin levels (risk ratio 0.82 [0.72-0.92]; risk ratio 0.84 [0.76-0.93], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis shows that an early angiographic strategy does not improve clinical outcome in patients with NSTE-ACS. An early invasive strategy might reduce the rate of composite death or re-MI in high-risk patients with GRACE risk scores >140 or elevated cardiac markers.

Immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Inconsistent results exist regarding the treatment effectiveness of immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of immediate versus deferred PCI in ACS patients. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched from their inception up to August 2019. Random-effects models were employed to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and weight mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited 3350 patients were selected for inclusion in the final meta-analysis. Four trials included patients with non-ST elevation ACS (NSTEACS), whereas the remaining six trials included patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). There were no significant differences between immediate versus deferred PCI for the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.76, 95%CI, 0.33-1.75, P = 0.513; STEMI patients: RR, 1.24, 95%CI, 0.80-1.92, P = 0.335), myocardial infarction (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.88, 95%CI, 0.27-2.81, P = 0.826; STEMI patients: RR, 0.86, 95%CI, 0.43-1.74, P = 0.678), all-cause mortality (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.85, 95%CI, 0.38-1.88, P = 0.686; STEMI patients: RR, 1.16, 95%CI, 0.82-1.66, P = 0.407), target vessel revascularisation (NSTEACS patients: RR, 1.26, 95%CI, 0.29-5.43, P = 0.756; STEMI patients: RR, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.51-1.97, P = 0.988), or major bleeding (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.99, 95%CI, 0.64-1.54, P = 0.972; STEMI patients: RR, 0.90, 95%CI, 0.45-1.77, P = 0.753). Although patients who underwent immediate PCI may experience increased incidences of cardiac death (RR, 1.19, 95%CI, 0.69-2.07, P = 0.525) and no or slow reflow (RR, 1.60, 95%CI, 0.91-2.84, P = 0.105), these increases were not statistically significant. We noted that immediate versus deferred PCI was associated with a reduced incidence of myocardial brush grade 3 (RR, 0.70, 95%CI, 0.56-0.88, P = 0.002); however, no significant differences were observed between immediate and deferred PCI for TIMI III flow (RR, 0.98, 95%CI, 0.93-1.03, P = 0.453), complete ST-segment resolution (RR, 0.93, 95%CI, 0.75-1.17, P = 0.548), and ejection fraction (WMD, -1.05, 95%CI, -2.58 to 0.49, P = 0.182). The findings of this study suggested that deferred PCI did not yield significant benefits for clinical endpoints. Further large-scale RCTs should be conducted to verify the findings of this study.

Timing of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome - Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Literature

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the standard procedure of care for most patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). However, the timing of PCI remains unclear. We performed this meta-analysis with available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare early versus late coronary intervention in patients with NSTE-ACS.

METHOD

A total of 13 RCTs were selected through PubMed/MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to October 2018) search. Outcomes were analyzed using the relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. Pooled RRs were determined using M-H random-effects model, which can account for between study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs with 11,972 patients were included. There were 7101 patients were randomized into early invasive group and 4871 in late invasive group. There was a significant decrease in myocardial infarction with long-term follow up in early invasive group compared to the delayed invasive group (RR 0.847 [95% CI 0.74-0.95], p = 0.009) with no difference in mortality between early and late invasive group (5.41% vs 6.49%, RR 0.882 [95% CI, 0.76-1.02]). On subgroup analysis, data was available from 6 RCTs for GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) score and 8 RCTs for elevated troponin. Early intervention led to decrease in adverse events in patients with elevated GRACE score > 140 (Mantel-Haenszel pooled RR 0.88 [95% CI 0.82-0.95], p-value 0.002) but no difference was seen in patients with elevated troponin.

CONCLUSION

It can be postulated from these results that early invasive strategy leads to decrease in myocardial infarction but without significant decrease in mortality. In patients with elevated GRACE score (>140), early intervention did show a trend towards decrease in major adverse cardiac events, whereas in patients with elevated troponin alone, similar association was not observed. However, adequately powered randomized controlled trial is necessary to validate these findings.

Comparison of early and delayed invasive strategies in short-medium term among patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and objectives

An invasive approach is recommended as the treatment of patients with non-ST elevated acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS). However, it remains unclear that the optimal time of angiography and intervention for patients with NSTE-ACS at present. This study was designed to compare the effect of early and delayed invasive strategies on short-medium term prognosis in patients with those.

Methods

Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched up to Dec-30-2018. Randomized clinical trials comparing an early versus a delayed invasive strategy in patients with NSTE-ACS were included. The primary endpoint (all-cause death and recurrent myocardial infarction) and secondary endpoint (major bleeding and recurrent revascularization), as well as composite endpoint were assessed by random or fixed effected meta-analysis with software RevMan 5.3 version after short-medium term follow up.

Result

A total of six randomized clinical trials involving 4,277 early or delayed invasive strategies patients with NSTE-ACS were included in the meta-analysis. Time to coronary angiography varied from 0.5 to 24 h in the early invasive strategy and from 18.6 to 72 h in the delayed invasive strategy. There was a statistical difference in the primary endpoint of all-cause death among patients with NSTE-ACS between early and delayed invasive strategies (4.6% vs 6%; OR:0.76; 95% CI:0.58 to 1.00; P = 0.05; I² = 0%), but not for recurrent myocardial infarction (6.0% vs 6.3%; OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.61; P = 0.82; I² = 60%). The major bleeding in patients with NSTE-ACS was similar between both invasive strategies (2.7% vs 3.1%; OR:0.88; 95% CI:0.59 to 1.31; P = 0.54; I² = 0%). However, the composite endpoint in the early invasive strategy patients with NSTE-ACS was significantly lower than that of the delayed invasive strategy (10.9% vs 13.9%; OR:0.76; 95% CI:0.63 to 0.92; P = 0.006; I² = 0%), and the recurrent revascularization between both strategies was just the opposite (8.7% vs 5.9%; OR:1.5; 95%CI:1.15 to 1.97; P = 0.003; I² = 0%).

Conclusion

The systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that the early invasive strategy had a beneficial trend on all-cause death and significantly reduced the composite endpoint in patients with NSTE-ACS, but increased the rate of revascularization. These data could provide a solution for patients with those.

Early revascularization and long-term mortality in high-risk patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. The CARDIOCHUS-HUSJ registry

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

This study sought to analyze the association of early coronary angiography with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) using a large contemporary cohort of patients with NSTEACS from 2 Spanish tertiary hospitals.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included 5673 consecutive NSTEACS patients from 2 Spanish hospitals between 2005 and 2016. We performed propensity score matching to obtain a well-balanced subset of patients with the same probability of undergoing an early strategy, resulting in 3780 patients. Survival analyses were performed by Cox regression models once proportional risk test were verified.

RESULTS

Among the study participants, only 2087 patients (40.9%) underwent early invasive coronary angiography. The median follow-up was 59.0 months [interquartile range, 25.0-80.0 months]. All-cause mortality was 19.0%, cardiovascular mortality was 12.8%, and 51.1% patients experienced at least 1 major cardiovascular adverse event in the follow-up. After propensity score matching, the early strategy was associated with significantly lower mortality (hazard ratio: 0.79; 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.98) in high-risk NSTEACS patients. The darly strategy showed a nonsignificant inverse tendency in patients with GRACE score <140.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-risk (GRACE score≥ 140) NSTEACS patients in a contemporary real-world registry, early coronary angiography (first 24hours after hospital admission) may be associated with reduced all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality at long-term follow-up.

Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest without ST-Segment Elevation

BACKGROUND

Ischemic heart disease is a major cause of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The role of immediate coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of patients who have been successfully resuscitated after cardiac arrest in the absence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains uncertain.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 552 patients who had cardiac arrest without signs of STEMI to undergo immediate coronary angiography or coronary angiography that was delayed until after neurologic recovery. All patients underwent PCI if indicated. The primary end point was survival at 90 days. Secondary end points included survival at 90 days with good cerebral performance or mild or moderate disability, myocardial injury, duration of catecholamine support, markers of shock, recurrence of ventricular tachycardia, duration of mechanical ventilation, major bleeding, occurrence of acute kidney injury, need for renal-replacement therapy, time to target temperature, and neurologic status at discharge from the intensive care unit.

RESULTS

At 90 days, 176 of 273 patients (64.5%) in the immediate angiography group and 178 of 265 patients (67.2%) in the delayed angiography group were alive (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 1.27; P = 0.51). The median time to target temperature was 5.4 hours in the immediate angiography group and 4.7 hours in the delayed angiography group (ratio of geometric means, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.36). No significant differences between the groups were found in the remaining secondary end points.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients who had been successfully resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and had no signs of STEMI, a strategy of immediate angiography was not found to be better than a strategy of delayed angiography with respect to overall survival at 90 days. (Funded by the Netherlands Heart Institute and others; COACT Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR4973.).

Optimal strategy of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction due to unprotected left main coronary artery occlusion (OPTIMAL): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) caused by left main coronary artery occlusion is associated with significantly higher mortality and risks of major adverse cardiovascular events. Deferred stent implantation may improve prognosis of primary PCI by reducing distal embolization and no-reflow phenomenon. There is no randomized clinical trial focusing on the effect and outcome of deferred stent implantation on primary PCI for left main coronary artery occlusion in contrast with conventional strategy.

Methods

The Optimal Strategy of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction due to Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Occlusion (OPTIMAL) study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03282773) is an open-label, randomized, multicenter clinical trial in which 480 patients presenting with AMI caused by left main coronary artery occlusion recruited from 30 hospitals in mainland China will be randomly assigned 1:1 to immediate stenting or deferred stenting (scheduled 4–10 days after primary angioplasty) groups. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause mortality or recurrent myocardial infarction at 30 days after randomization. The secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and unplanned target vessel revascularization at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months.

Discussion

The OPTIMAL study is designed to compare the clinical performance of deferred stenting with that of immediate stenting for AMI caused by left main coronary artery occlusion.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03282773. Registered on 10 September 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3211-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Contemporary practice pattern of revascularization in a large tertiary care referral center in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: A propensity-matched 10-year experience

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare the effects of early versus delayed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on the outcomes at 1 year in patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).

BACKGROUND

Prompt reperfusion in NSTEMI remains controversial. Randomized studies have shown conflicting results regarding the benefits of early intervention versus delayed intervention (defined as intervention performed within 24 hr vs. 24-72 hr of presentation, respectively). This study was conducted to determine the clinical outcomes post PCI in a large tertiary care center.

METHODS

A propensity-matched group of 1,640 NSTEMI patients [62.4% males (n = 1,023), median age 65 years] was studied for a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure in 1 year as a primary endpoint after PCI. Patients were divided into an early intervention group (EIG) and delayed intervention group (DIG). Timing of PCI was determined by the treating interventional cardiologist.

RESULTS

The primary outcome was significantly lower in the EIG than DIG (20.4% vs. 24.9%, P = 0.029), which was mainly derived from mortality benefit in the EIG. There was no difference in occurrence of death, MI, stroke, or heart failure between the groups at 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

An earlier PCI in patients with NSTEMI is associated with a significant reduction in the composite outcome of death, MI, heart failure, or stroke at 1 year compared with delayed PCI. Based on this large cohort of patients from a real-world referral center, contemporary reperfusion practices in NSTEMI may need to be re-examined with a bias toward early intervention.

Treatment patterns of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome patients presenting at non-PCI centres in the Netherlands and possible logistical consequences of adopting same-day transfer to PCI centres: a registry-based evaluation

BACKGROUND

European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend same-day transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centre for angiography in high-risk (ESC-HR) patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). We describe the treatment patterns of NSTE-ACS patients presenting at non-PCI centres and evaluate the logistical consequences of adopting same-day transfer.

METHODS

From August 2016 until January 2017, all consecutive NSTE-ACS patients presenting at 23 non-PCI centres in the Netherlands were recorded. We built an online case report form in collaboration with the National Cardiovascular Database Registry to collect information on risk stratification by the attending physician, timing and location of angiography, and treatment.

RESULTS

We included 871 patients (mean age 69.1 ± 12.8). 55.8% were considered ESC-HR. Overall, angiography at non-PCI centres was 55.1% and revascularisation was 54.1%. Among ESC-HR patients, angiography at non-PCI centres was 51.4% and revascularisation was 54.9%. Angiography <24 h was 55.6% in patients with angiography at a non-PCI centre and 74.3% in patients with angiography at a PCI-centre. Assuming patients would receive similar treatment, adoption of same-day transfer would increase transfers of ESC-HR patients who undergo PCI (44.3%), but also increases transfers of medically treated patients (36.2%) and patients awaiting coronary bypass artery grafting (9.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this registry of NSTE-ACS patients at non-PCI centres, the majority of ESC-HR patients underwent angiography at a non-PCI centre. Same-day transfer occurred in one-quarter of the ESC-HR patients, despite guideline recommendation. Nonselective adoption of same-day transfer to a PCI centre would increase transfers of ESC-HR patients who undergo PCI, however, equally increases transfers of patients who are medically treated.

Association of potent P2Y12 blockers with ischemic and bleeding outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Potent P2Y12 blockers are preferred in patients with acute non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the risk of bleeding remains a major concern. We assessed the association of potent P2Y12 blockers with ischemic and bleeding outcomes in patients with NSTEMI.

METHODS

From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health database, 4927 patients with NSTEMI receiving drug-eluting stents (DES) were divided into potent P2Y12 blocker (ticagrelor or prasugrel, n=901) and clopidogrel (n=3180) groups. Propensity-matched 12-month ischemic and bleeding events were compared. Patients who received anticoagulants or who discontinued P2Y12 blockers or switched between potent P2Y12 blockers and clopidogrel were excluded.

RESULTS

In the overall population, patients at higher ischemic and bleeding risks more often received clopidogrel. After propensity matching (n=901 in each group), 12-month rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were lower (7.3% vs. 10.1%, p=0.038), but Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding rates were higher (5.9% vs. 2.2%, p<0.001) with potent P2Y12 blockers. Twelve-month rates of death from any cause, MI, stroke, or TIMI major bleeding were not different. On multivariate analysis, 12-month risk of TIMI major or minor bleeding was higher with B2 or C lesion, potent P2Y12 blocker use, body weight <60kg, and lower with time to PCI <12h and radial artery access.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with NSTEMI receiving DES, potent P2Y12 blockers were associated with reduced ischemic but increased bleeding risk with similar net clinical benefits.

Non-ST-Segment Acute Coronary Syndromes

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) represents an umbrella of ischemic myocardial disease and diagnoses encompassing unstable angina (UA), non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). UA and NSTEMI for all intents and purposes, share similar pathophysiology, but at increasing severity. This article focuses on the diagnosis, risk stratification, management, and strategies that impact outcomes in NSTEMI.

Three-Year Impact of Immediate Invasive Strategy in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (from the RIDDLE-NSTEMI Study)

Previous studies compared clinical outcomes of early versus delayed invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome up to 1-year follow-up, but long-term data remain scarce. Our aim was to evaluate the long-term effects of immediate invasive intervention in patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI). The Randomized Study of Immediate Versus Delayed Invasive Intervention in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (RIDDLE-NSTEMI) was a randomized, investigator-initiated, parallel-group trial that assigned 323 patients with NSTEMI (1:1) to either immediate (median time to intervention 1.4 hours) or delayed invasive strategy (61.0 hours). The primary end point was the composite of death or new myocardial infarction (MI). At 3 years, immediate invasive intervention was associated with a lower rate of death or new MI, compared with a delayed invasive strategy (12.3% vs 22.5%, hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.87, p = 0.014). The observed benefit of immediate intervention was mainly driven by an increased early reinfarction risk in delayed strategy, with similar new MI rates beyond 30 days (4.4% in the immediate and 5.6% in the delayed group, p = 0.61). Three-year mortality was 9.3% in the immediate invasive strategy, and 10.0% in the delayed strategy (p = 0.83). High baseline Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score (>140) was associated with a significant increase in long-term mortality, regardless of the timing of invasive intervention. In conclusion, whereas immediate invasive intervention significantly reduced the early risk of new MI, the timing of invasive intervention appears to have no significant impact on clinical outcomes beyond 30 days, which seem to mostly be related to the baseline clinical risk profile.

Regional to tertiary inter-hospital transfer versus in-house percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome

RATIONALE

To address the inaccessibility of interventional cardiac services in North Queensland a new cardiac catheterisation laboratory (CCL) was established in Mackay Base Hospital (MBH) in February 2014.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the provision of in-house angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) 1) minimises treatment delays 2) further reduces the risk of mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) and recurrent ischaemia 3) improves patient satisfaction and 4) minimises cost expenditure compared with inter-hospital transfer for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS

We compared ACS patients who were transferred to tertiary centres from July 2012 to June 2013 with those who received in-house angiography and/or PCI from February 2015 to January 2016. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) or recurrent ischaemia at six months. Pre-specified secondary outcomes were the composite of all-cause mortality, recurrent MI or recurrent ischaemia at one month, a summated patient satisfaction score and the proportional cost savings generated between 2015 and 2016.

RESULTS

We included consecutive samples of 203 patients from July 2012 to June 2013 and 229 patients from February 2015 to January 2016. There was a reduction in the median time to treatment of 3.2 days and a reduction in the median length of stay of four days amongst all ACS patients receiving in-house angiography and/or PCI. The primary outcome occurred in 14 (6.9%) patients in the 2012 to 2013 group, as compared with 18 (7.9%) patients in the 2015 to 2016 group (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.24-2.1, P = 0.54). The secondary outcome at one month occurred in four (2.0%) patients in the 2012 to 2013 group, as compared with three (1.3%) patients in the 2015 to 2016 group (OR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.11-13.1, P = 0.87). There was a statistically significant improvement in the summated patient satisfaction score amongst patients who received in-house angiography and/or PCI (U = 1918, P <0.05 two tailed). A calculation of estimated cost savings showed a reduction in proportional cost of $14 481 (51%) per ACS patient receiving in house angiography and/or PCI between 2015 and 2016.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the provision of regional in-house angiography and/or PCI for the treatment of ACS minimises delays to invasive treatment by 3.2 days, minimises the median length of stay by four days, significantly improves patient satisfaction and reduces proportional treatment costs by $14 481 (51%) per patient. Currently, however, it appears that that in-house treatment does not further reduce the risk of mortality, recurrent MI and recurrent ischaemia at one and six months.

Acute kidney injury requiring dialysis and in-hospital mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing early vs delayed percutaneous coronary intervention: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a well-known risk factor for coronary artery disease and is associated with poor outcomes following an acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). The optimal timing of an invasive strategy in patients with CKD and NSTE-ACS is unclear.

HYPOTHESIS

Timing of PCI in CKD patients will not affect the risk of mortality or incidence of dialysis.

METHODS

We queried the National Inpatient Sample database (NIS) to identify cases with NSTEMI and CKD. Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) day 0 or 1 vs day 2 or 3 after admission were categorized as early vs delayed PCI, respectively. The primary outcomes of the study were in-hospital mortality and acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (AKI-D). The secondary outcomes were length of stay and hospital charges. Baseline characteristics were balanced using propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

After PSM, 3708 cases from the delayed PCI group were matched with 3708 cases from the early PCI group. The standardized mean differences between the 2 groups were substantially reduced after PSM. All other recorded variables were balanced between the 2 groups. In the early and delayed PCI groups, the incidence of AKI-D (2.5% vs 2.3%; P = 0.54) and in-hospital mortality (1.9% vs 1.4%; P = 0.12) was similar. Hospital charges and length of stay were higher in the delayed PCI group.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of AKI-D and in-hospital mortality among patients with CKD and NSTE-ACS were not significantly affected by the timing of PCI. However, delayed PCI added significant cost and length of stay. A prospective randomized study is required to validate this concept.

Immediate/Early vs. Delayed Invasive Strategy for Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Invasive coronary revascularization has been shown to improve prognoses in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), but the optimal timing of intervention remains unclear. This meta-analysis is to evaluate the outcomes in immediate (<2 h), early (<24 h), and delayed invasive group and find out which is the optimal timing of intervention in NSTE-ACS patients. Studies were identified through electronic literature search of Medline, PubMed Central, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CNKI. Data were extracted for populations, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias. All-cause mortality was the pre-specified primary end point. The longest follow-up available in each study was chosen. The odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was the effect measure. The fixed or random effect pooled measure was selected based on the heterogeneity test among studies. In the comparison between early and delayed intervention, we found that early intervention led to a statistical significant decrease in mortality rate (n = 6,624; OR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.61-0.99) and refractory ischemia (n = 6,127; OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.40-0.62) and a non-significant decrease in myocardial infarction (MI), major bleeding and revascularization. In the analysis comparing immediate and delayed invasive approach, we found that immediate intervention significantly reduced major bleeding (n = 1,217; OR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23-0.93) but led to a non-significant decrease in mortality rate, refractory ischemia and revascularization and a non-significant increase in MI. In conclusion, early invasive strategy may lead to a lower mortality rate and reduce the risk of refractory ischemia, while immediate invasive therapy shows a benefit in reducing the risk of major bleeding.

Timing of Angiography and Outcomes in High-Risk Patients With Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Managed Invasively: Insights From the TAO Trial (Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome With Otamixaban)

BACKGROUND

In patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) score >140, coronary angiography (CAG) is recommended by European and American guidelines within 24 hours. We sought to study the association of very early (ie, ≤12 hours), early (12-24 hours), and delayed (>24 hours) CAG in patients with NSTEMI with GRACE score >140 with ischemic outcomes.

METHODS

The TAO trial (Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome With Otamixaban) randomized patients with NSTEMI and CAG scheduled within 72 hours to heparin plus eptifibatide versus otamixaban. In this post hoc analysis, patients with a GRACE score >140 were categorized into 3 groups according to timing of CAG from admission (<12, ≥12-<24, and ≥24 hours). The primary ischemic outcome was the composite of all-cause death and myocardial infarction within 180 days of randomization.

RESULTS

CAG was performed in 4071 patients (<12 hours, n=1648 [40.5%]; 12-24 hours, n=1420 [34.9%]; ≥24 hours, n=1003 [24.6%]). With CAG ≥24 hours as a reference, CAG from 12 to 24 hours was not associated with a lower risk of primary ischemic outcome at 180 days (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.23), whereas CAG <12 hours was associated with a lower risk of death and myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.91). Performing CAG <12 hours was also associated with a lower risk of death and myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.94; P=0.01) compared with CAG performed at 12 to 24 hours. No difference was observed in bleeding complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with high-risk NSTEMI, undergoing CAG within the initial 12 hours after admission (as opposed to later, either 12-24 or ≥24 hours) was associated with lower risk of ischemic outcomes at 180 days.

Optimal timing of an invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

A routine invasive strategy is recommended for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS). However, optimal timing of invasive strategy is less clearly defined. Individual clinical trials were underpowered to detect a mortality benefit; we therefore did a meta-analysis to assess the effect of timing on mortality.

METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials comparing an early versus a delayed invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. We included trials that reported all-cause mortality at least 30 days after in-hospital randomisation and for which the trial investigators agreed to collaborate (ie, providing individual patient data or standardised tabulated data). We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) using random-effects models. This meta-analysis is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42015018988).

FINDINGS

We included eight trials (n=5324 patients) with a median follow-up of 180 days (IQR 180-360). Overall, there was no significant mortality reduction in the early invasive group compared with the delayed invasive group HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·64-1·03; p=0·0879). In pre-specified analyses of high-risk patients, we found lower mortality with an early invasive strategy in patients with elevated cardiac biomarkers at baseline (HR 0·761, 95% CI 0·581-0·996), diabetes (0·67, 0·45-0·99), a GRACE risk score more than 140 (0·70, 0·52-0·95), and aged 75 years older (0·65, 0·46-0·93), although tests for interaction were inconclusive.

INTERPRETATION

An early invasive strategy does not reduce mortality compared with a delayed invasive strategy in all patients with NSTE-ACS. However, an early invasive strategy might reduce mortality in high-risk patients.

FUNDING

None.

Examination of the appropriate timing of reperfusion therapy for recent myocardial infarction: a Japanese single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The various guidelines clearly mention the treatment strategies for in patient of acute myocardial infarction (MI) presenting more than 24h from symptom onset (recent myocardial infarction, RMI). However, the appropriate timing of reperfusion for RMI is unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 525 consecutive MI patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in our hospital between January 2008 and December 2012.

RESULTS

Sixty RMI patients were more frequently associated with cardiac complications such as myocardial rupture (3.3% vs. 0%; p<0.01), ventricular septal rupture (3.3% vs. 0.4%; p<0.05), and congestive heart failure (15% vs. 2.6%; p<0.001) than 272 consecutive ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. Of the 60 RMI patients, 33 (55.0%) underwent PCI within 7days (early-PCI group) and 27 (45.0%) underwent PCI after 7days (late-PCI group). Left ventricular ejection fraction measured by echocardiography at second hospital day was similar between the groups. The early-PCI group was more significantly associated with cardiogenic shock and heart failure and more frequently required intra-aortic balloon pumping (24.2% vs. 3.7%; p<0.05) than the late-PCI group. There were no significant differences in 30-day mortality, cardiac complications, and major cardiac events during long-term follow-up (12-36 months) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

RMI patients had a higher incidence of cardiac complications than AMI patients. Clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing early revascularization and those undergoing late revascularization, although the former group included a higher proportion of patients with severe cardiac failure.

Early versus late percutaneous revascularization in patients hospitalized with non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: The atherosclerosis risk in communities surveillance study

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend early invasive intervention (<24 hr) for high risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). A delayed invasive strategy (24-72 hr) is considered reasonable for low risk patients. The real-world effectiveness of this strategy is unknown.

METHODS

The ARIC Study has conducted hospital surveillance of acute myocardial infarction (MI) since 1987. NSTEMI was classified using a validated algorithm. We limited our study to patients undergoing early (<24 hr of the event onset), or late (≥24 hr) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients were stratified into low (TIMI score 2-4), and high risk (TIMI score 5-7, or presence of cardiogenic shock, ventricular fibrillation, or cardiac arrest). Associations between early versus late PCI and mortality were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for demographics, hospitalization year, TIMI score, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

From 1987 to 2012, 6,746 patients were hospitalized with NSTEMI and underwent PCI. Most were white (79%), male (68%), with mean age 61 years. The 28-day and 1-year mortality were 2% and 5%, respectively. Most revascularizations (65%) were late. After accounting for potential confounders, early PCI was associated with a 58% reduced 28-day mortality (OR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.21-0.84) for the entire population, and 57% reduced mortality (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.21-0.88) for high risk patients. By 1-year of follow up, there was no significant difference in mortality with respect to early vs. late PCI.

CONCLUSION

In hospitalized NSTEMI patients with high risk of clinical events, early PCI is associated with improved 28-day survival.

Coronary angiography after cardiac arrest: Rationale and design of the COACT trial

BACKGROUND

Ischemic heart disease is a major cause of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The role of immediate coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after restoration of spontaneous circulation following cardiac arrest in the absence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains debated.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesize that immediate CAG and PCI, if indicated, will improve 90-day survival in post-cardiac arrest patients without signs of STEMI.

DESIGN

In a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial, 552 post-cardiac arrest patients with restoration of spontaneous circulation and without signs of STEMI will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to immediate CAG and PCI (within 2 hours) versus initial deferral with CAG and PCI after neurological recovery. The primary end point of the study is 90-day survival. The secondary end points will include 90-day survival with good cerebral performance or minor/moderate disability, myocardial injury, duration of inotropic support, occurrence of acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy, time to targeted temperature control, neurological status at intensive care unit discharge, markers of shock, recurrence of ventricular tachycardia, duration of mechanical ventilation, and reasons for discontinuation of treatment.

SUMMARY

The COACT trial is a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical study that will evaluate the effect of an immediate invasive coronary strategy in post-cardiac arrest patients without STEMI on 90-day survival.

Clinical impact of immediate invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Immediate invasive approach for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) may permit treatment of the underlying plaque rupture as early as possible with subsequent reduction of death and myocardial infarction (MI). We sought to assess clinical impact of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for NSTEMI.

METHODS

A total of 6134 NSTEMI patients undergoing PCI from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry were divided into group 1 (immediate PCI within 4h, n=1132) and group 2 (non-immediate PCI after 4h, n=5002). Propensity-matched 12-month clinical outcome was compared.

RESULTS

In all patients and propensity-matched cohort (n=1131 in each group), group 1 had higher peak troponin level, higher rate of pre-PCI Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) grade 0 or 1, higher use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, and lower use of unfractionated heparin and nitrates. In all patients, 12-month rates of MI and death/MI were higher in group 1. No differences were observed in 12-month death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: composite of death, MI, target-vessel revascularization, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery). In propensity-matched cohort, no significant differences were observed in 12-month rates of death, MI, death/MI or MACE. However, group 1 had less major bleeding (0.8% vs. 3.0%, p=0.024) and shorter hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate PCI for patients with NSTEMI was associated with lower pre-PCI culprit vessel patency and not with improved 12-month clinical outcome.

Early Invasive Strategy for Unstable Angina: a New Meta-Analysis of Old Clinical Trials

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conflicting to support whether unstable angina versus non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) patients best undergo early invasive or a conservative revascularization strategy. RCTs with cardiac biomarkers, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1975-2013 were reviewed considering all cause mortality, recurrent non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and their combination. Follow-up lasted from 6-24 months and the use of routine invasive strategy up to its end was associated with a significantly lower composite of all-cause mortality and recurrent non-fatal MI (Relative Risk [RR] 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.90) in UA/NSTEMI. In NSTEMI, by the invasive strategy, there was no benefit (RR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.38). In the shorter time period, from randomization to discharge, a routine invasive strategy was associated with significantly higher odds of the combined end-point among UA/NSTEMI (RR 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05-1.58) and NSTEMI (RR 1.82; 95% CI, 1.34-2.48) patients. Therefore, in trials recruiting a large number of UA patients, by routine invasive strategy the largest benefit was seen, whereas in NSTEMI patients death and non-fatal MI were not lowered. Routine invasive treatment in UA patients is accordingly supported by the present study.

Routine invasive strategies versus selective invasive strategies for unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in the stent era

BACKGROUND

People with unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) are managed with a combination of medical therapy, invasive angiography and revascularisation. Specifically, two approaches have evolved: either a 'routine invasive' strategy whereby all patients undergo coronary angiography shortly after admission and, if indicated, coronary revascularisation; or a 'selective invasive' (also referred to as 'conservative') strategy in which medical therapy alone is used initially, with a selection of patients for angiography based upon evidence of persistent myocardial ischaemia. Uncertainty exists as to which strategy provides the best outcomes for these patients. This Cochrane review is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2006, to provide a robust comparison of these two strategies in the early management of patients with UA/NSTEMI.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms associated with the following.1. A routine invasive versus a conservative or 'selective invasive' strategy for the management of UA/NSTEMI in the stent era.2. A routine invasive strategy with and without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists versus a conservative strategy for the management of UA/NSTEMI in the stent era.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases and additional resources up to 25 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE, with no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared invasive with conservative or 'selective invasive' strategies in participants with acute UA/NSTEMI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the records and extracted data in duplicate. Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, we calculated summary estimates of the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the primary endpoints of all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), combined all-cause death or non-fatal MI, refractory angina and re-hospitalisation. We performed further analysis of included studies based on whether glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists were used routinely. We assessed the heterogeneity of included trials using Pearson χ² (Chi² test) and variance (I² statistic) analysis. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 (Review Manager) to create Summary of findings (SoF) tables.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs with a total of 8915 participants (4545 invasive strategies, 4370 conservative strategies) were eligible for inclusion. We included three new studies and 1099 additional participants in this review update. In the all-study analysis, evidence did not show appreciable risk reductions in all-cause mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.18; eight studies, 8915 participants; low quality evidence) and death or non-fatal MI (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.2; seven studies, 7715 participants; low quality evidence) with invasive strategies compared to conservative (selective invasive) strategies at six to 12 months follow-up. There was appreciable risk reduction in MI (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.00; eight studies, 8915 participants; moderate quality evidence), refractory angina (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.79; five studies, 8287 participants; moderate quality evidence) and re-hospitalisation (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.94; six studies, 6921 participants; moderate quality evidence) with routine invasive strategies compared to conservative (selective invasive) strategies also at six to 12 months follow-up.Evidence also showed increased risks in bleeding (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.31; six studies, 7584 participants; moderate quality evidence) and procedure-related MI (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.37; five studies, 6380 participants; moderate quality evidence) with routine invasive strategies compared to conservative (selective invasive) strategies.The low quality evidence were as a result of serious risk of bias and imprecision in the estimate of effect while moderate quality evidence was only due to serious risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the all-study analysis, the evidence failed to show appreciable benefit with routine invasive strategies for unstable angina and non-ST elevation MI compared to conservative strategies in all-cause mortality and death or non-fatal MI at six to 12 months. There was evidence of risk reduction in MI, refractory angina and re-hospitalisation with routine invasive strategies compared to conservative (selective invasive) strategies at six to 12 months follow-up. However, routine invasive strategies were associated with a relatively high risk (almost double the risk) of procedure-related MI, and increased risk of bleeding complications. This systematic analysis of published RCTs supports the conclusion that, in patients with UA/NSTEMI, a selectively invasive (conservative) strategy based on clinical risk for recurrent events is the preferred management strategy.

Early versus delayed percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) remains uncertain. We sought to assess clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients in real-world contemporary practice who have early versus delayed PCI for NSTEACS.

METHODS

We analyzed baseline clinical and procedural characteristics of 4307 patients with NSTEACS who underwent PCI from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry. Patients were assigned to the early PCI group if intervention was performed within a calendar day of presentation. The delayed PCI group received an intervention after one calendar day, but within the index admission. We assessed 30 days and 12-month mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and major adverse cardiovascular events. The safety endpoint was in-hospital bleeding.

RESULTS

Of the 4307 patients, 2210 (51%) received early PCI. The delayed PCI group were older (67±12 vs. 64±12, P<0.01), more likely to have biomarker elevation (70 vs. 66%, P<0.01), and had more comorbidities. There was no difference in efficacy at 30 days between the groups. At 12 months, delayed PCI was associated with higher mortality (4.6 vs. 3.3%, P=0.02), myocardial infarction (7.9 vs. 5.2%, P<0.01), and MACE (15.5 vs. 12.4%, P<0.01). On multivariate analysis, delayed PCI was not associated with increased mortality at 12 months (odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.7-1.3).

CONCLUSION

In patients with stable NSTEACS treated with PCI, delayed intervention was performed in those who were older and had higher risk features. However, there appears to be no mortality hazard for these high-risk patients where PCI is delayed beyond the first 24 h after presentation and performed within the index admission.