Contemporary Patterns of Early Coronary Angiography Use in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in the United States: Insights From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry

OBJECTIVES

The study sought to characterize patient- and hospital-level variation in early angiography use among non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients.

BACKGROUND

Contemporary implementation of guideline recommendations for early angiography use in NSTEMI patients in the United States have not been described.

METHODS

The study analyzed NSTEMI patients included in ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) registry (2012 to 2014) who underwent in-hospital angiography. Timing of angiography was categorized as early (≤24 h) vs. delayed (>24 h). The study evaluated factors associated with early angiography, hospital-level variation in early angiography use, and the relationship with quality-of-care measures.

RESULTS

A total of 79,760 of 138,688 (57.5%) patients underwent early angiography. Factors most strongly associated with delayed angiography included weekend or holiday presentation, lower initial troponin ratio values, higher initial creatinine values, heart failure on presentation, and older age. Median hospital-level use of early angiography was 58.5% with wide variation across hospitals (21.7% to 100.0%). Patient characteristics did not differ substantially across hospitals grouped by tertiles of early angiography use (low, middle, and high). Hospitals in the highest tertile tended to more commonly use guideline-recommended medications and had higher defect-free care quality scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In contemporary U.S. practice, high-risk clinical characteristics were associated with lower use of early angiography in NSTEMI patients; hospital-level use of early angiography varied widely despite few differences in case mix. Hospitals that most commonly utilized early angiography also had higher quality-of-care metrics, highlighting the need for improved NSTEMI guideline adherence.

The 2012 ACCF/AHA Focused Update of the Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (UA/NSTEMI) Guideline: a critical appraisal

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) recently published the 2012 ACCF/AHA Focused Update of the Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (Updating the 2007 Guideline and Replacing the 2011 Update).(1) These guidelines were developed in collaboration with multiple societies and represent an important landmark in the management of patients with unstable angina (UA) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). This paper provides a critical overview of some of the clinically relevant novel and modified recommendations proposed by the updated guideline.

Unmet Needs in Managing Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Malignancy

Patients with cancer face a high short-term risk of arterial thromboembolism. One of the most fatal manifestations of arterial thromboembolism is myocardial infarction (MI), and patients with cancer face a 3-fold greater risk of MI than patients without cancer. The individual risk for arterial thrombotic events in patients with cancer is determined by the complex interaction of baseline cardiovascular risk factors, cancer type and stage, chemotherapeutic regimen, and other general contributing factors for thrombosis. Managing MI in patients with cancer is a clinical challenge, particularly due to cancer's unique pathophysiology, which makes it difficult to balance thrombotic and bleeding risks in this specific patient population. When patients with cancer present with MI, a limited proportion are treated with guideline-recommended therapy, such as antiplatelet therapy or invasive revascularization. Despite the limited evidence, existing reports consistently suggest similar clinical benefits of guideline-recommended therapy when administered to patients with cancer presenting with MI. In this review, we briefly summarize the available evidence, clinical challenges, and future perspectives on simultaneous management of MI and cancer, with a focus on invasive strategy.

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.

Outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome randomly assigned to invasive versus conservative treatment strategies: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the present study was to compare the prognoses of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes who were treated with invasive or conservative treatment strategies.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of studies of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes to assess the benefits of an invasive strategy vs. a conservative strategy for short- and long-term survival. We searched PubMed for studies published from 1990 to November 2012 that investigated the effects of an invasive vs. conservative strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. The following search terms were used: "non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction", "unstable angina", "acute coronary syndromes", "invasive strategy", and "conservative strategy". The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

Seven published studies were included in the present meta-analysis. The pooled analyses show that an invasive strategy decreased the risk of death (risk ratio [0.839] [95% confidence interval {0.648-1.086}; I 2, 86.46%] compared to a conservative strategy over a 30-day-period. Furthermore, invasive treatment also decreased patient mortality (risk ratio [0.276] [95% confidence interval {0.259-0.294}; I 2, 94.58%]) compared to a conservative strategy for one year.

CONCLUSION

In non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, an invasive strategy is comparable to a conservative strategy for decreasing short- and long-term mortality rates.

Clinical presentation and treatment of acute coronary syndrome as well as 1-year survival of patients hospitalized due to cancer: A 7-year experience of a nonacademic center

The diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with cancer constitutes a therapeutic challenge. We aimed to assess the clinical presentation and management of ACS as well as 1-year survival in patients hospitalized for cancer.This retrospective study included patients hospitalized between 2012 and 2018 in a nonacademic center. The inclusion criteria were diagnosis of active cancer and ACS recognized using standard criteria. Patients were assessed with respect to invasive or conservative ACS strategy. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, and the secondary endpoint was cardiovascular mortality during 1-year follow-up.We screened 25,165 patients, of whom 36 (0.14%) had ACS (mean [SD] age, 71.9 [9.8] years). The most common presentation was non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (61% of patients). Coronary angiography was performed in 47% of patients, while 53% were treated conservatively. Overall, the primary endpoint occurred in 67% of patients and secondary endpoint in 28% during follow-up. The predictors of better outcome in a univariate analysis were invasive strategy, lack of metastases, aspirin use, and no cardiogenic shock. Invasive treatment and aspirin use remained significant predictors of better survival when adjusted for the presence of metastases (hazard ratio [HR] 0.37, confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.92 and HR 0.39, CI 0.16-0.94, respectively) and ineligibility for cancer treatment (HR 0.37, CI 0.15-0.93 and HR 0.30, CI 0.12-0.73, respectively).The incidence of ACS in cancer patients is low but 1-year mortality rates are high. Guideline-recommended management was frequently underused. Our results suggest that invasive approach and aspirin use are associated with better survival regardless of cancer stage and eligibility for cancer treatment.

Impact of routine invasive strategy on outcomes in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction during 2005-2014: A report from the Polish Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes (PL-ACS)

BACKGROUND

Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) has become the most frequently encountered type of myocardial infarction. The patient clinical profile and management has evolved over the past decade. As there is still a scarcity of data on the latest trends in NSTEMI, changes herein were observed and assessed in the treatment and outcomes in Poland between 2005 and 2014.

METHODS

A total of 197,192 patients with NSTEMI who enrolled in the Polish Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes (PL-ACS) between 2005 and 2014 were analyzed. In-hospital and 12-month mortality were assessed.

RESULTS

Coronary angiography use increased from 35.8% in 2005-2007 to 90.7% in 2012-2014 (p < 0.05), whereas percutaneous coronary intervention increased from 25.7% in 2005-2007 to 63.6% in 2012-2014 (p < 0.05). There was a 50% reduction in in-hospital mortality (from 5.6% in 2005-2007 to 2.8% in 2012-2014; p < 0.05) and a 30% reduction in 1-year mortality (from 19.4% in 2005-2007 to 13.7% in 2012-2014; p < 0.05). A multivariate analysis confirmed an immense impact of invasive strategy on patient prognosis during in-hospital observation with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.33; p < 0.05) as well as during the 12-month observation with an OR of 0.51 (95% CI 0.49-0.52; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 10 years, an important advance in the management of NSTEMI has taken place in Poland. Routine invasive strategy resulted in a significant decrease in mortality rates in all groups of NSTEMI patients.

Conservative versus Invasive Strategy in Elderly Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Insights from the International POPular Age Registry

This registry assessed the impact of conservative and invasive strategies on major adverse clinical events (MACE) in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Patients aged ≥75 years with NSTEMI were prospectively registered from European centers and followed up for one year. Outcomes were compared between conservative and invasive groups in the overall population and a propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort. MACE included cardiovascular death, acute coronary syndrome, and stroke. The study included 1190 patients (median age 80 years, 43% female). CAG was performed in 67% (N = 798), with two-thirds undergoing revascularization. Conservatively treated patients had higher baseline risk. After propensity score matching, 319 patient pairs were successfully matched. MACE occurred more frequently in the conservative group (total population 20% vs. 12%, adjHR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.77, p = 0.001), remaining significant in the PSM cohort (18% vs. 12%, adjHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.81, p = 0.004). In conclusion, an early invasive strategy was associated with benefits over conservative management in elderly patients with NSTEMI. Risk factors associated with ischemia and bleeding should guide strategy selection rather than solely relying on age.

ISCHEMIA Trial and the Significance of MI

During the past decade, the treatment of choice for chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) has been a contentious issue. Whether revascularisation, either percutaneous or surgical, or optimal medical therapy, offers better prognosis in terms of mortality, MI, and symptom relief, has yet to be confirmed. The long-awaited and recently published International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial randomised more than 5,000 patients into a revascularisation plus optimal medical therapy group and an optimal medical therapy alone group. The authors analyse the trial, with particular emphasis on the incidence of MI. They propose a patient-centred approach to incorporate the results of the ISCHEMIA trial into daily practice and determine the best treatment strategy for patients with CCS.

A retrospective study of an invasive versus conservative strategy in patients aged ≥80 years with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Objective

To investigate what is the most appropriate strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) aged ≥80 years in China.

Methods

This cohort study retrospectively enrolled patients with STEMI aged ≥80 years old and grouped them according to the treatment strategy that was used: a conservative treatment strategy or an invasive treatment strategy. Factors associated with whether to perform an invasive intervention, in-hospital death and a good prognosis were investigated using logistic regression analyses.

Results

A total of 232 patients were enrolled: conservative treatment group ( n = 93) and invasive treatment group ( n = 139). Patients in the invasive treatment group had a better prognosis and lower incidence of adverse events compared with the conservative treatment group. Advanced age, creatinine level and a higher Killip class were inversely correlated with whether to perform an invasive intervention, while the use of beta-receptor-blocking agents was a favourable factor for invasive treatment. Hypertension and a higher Killip class were risk factors for in-hospital death, while the use of beta-receptor-blocking agents and diuretics decreased the risk of in-hospital death.

Conclusions

An invasive treatment strategy was superior to a conservative treatment strategy in patients with STEMI aged ≥80 years.

The Impacts of In-Hospital Invasive Strategy on Long-Term Outcome in Elderly Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

The benefit of utilizing an invasive strategy in elderly Chinese patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether in-hospital revascularization is associated with long-term prognosis in elderly Chinese patients with NSTEMI, as compared with younger patients.

METHODS

All patients were followed up for at least 3 years or until the occurrence of a major event. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, and the secondary endpoint was the combined occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including death, nonfatal MI, and ischemic stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 343 consecutive NSTEMI patients (148 over the age of 75 years and 195 aged < 75 years) were enrolled. Coronary angiography was performed less frequently in elderly patients (66% vs. 76%; p = 0.027). Multiple logistic regression analysis confirmed the benefit of in-hospital revascularization in the elderly and younger patients, with a statistically significant reduction in the odds of all-cause death and MACE at 1 year and 3 years, respectively. In a multivariable Cox regression analysis, in-hospital revascularization was an independent predictor of future MACE not only in elderly patients [hazard ratio (HR), 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38-0.97] but also in younger patients as well (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31-0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

In Chinese patients with NSTEMI, in-hospital revascularization was associated with significant benefits at 1 year and 3 years in both younger and elderly groups. These results are consistent with the published literature and suggest that advanced age alone should not be regarded as a contraindication to invasive management following presentation with NSTEMI.

KEY WORDS

Elderly; Invasive strategy; Myocardial infarction.

Comprehensive evaluation of time-varied outcomes for invasive and conservative strategies in patients with NSTE-ACS: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses comparing invasive and conservative strategies in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) are highly debatable. We systematically evaluate the efficacy of invasive and conservative strategies in NSTE-ACS based on time-varied outcomes.

Methods

The RCTs for the invasive versus conservative strategies were identified by searching PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial data for studies with a minimum follow-up time of 30 days were included. We categorized the follow-up time into six varied periods, namely, ≤6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, and ≥10 years. The time-varied outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), death, myocardial infarction (MI), rehospitalization, cardiovascular death, bleeding, in-hospital death, and in-hospital bleeding. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis) were calculated. The random effects model was used.

Results

This meta-analysis included 30 articles of 17 RCTs involving 12,331 participants. We found that the invasive strategy did not provide appreciable benefits for NSTE-ACS in terms of MACE, death, and cardiovascular death at all time points compared with the conservative strategy. Although the risk of MI was reduced within 6 months (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94) for the invasive strategy, no significant differences were observed in other periods. The invasive strategy reduced the rehospitalization rate within 6 months (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52-0.90), 1 year (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.86), and 2 years (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-1.00). Of note, an increased risk of bleeding (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.28-2.54) and in-hospital bleeding (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.52-3.10) was observed for the invasive strategy within 6 months. In subgroups stratified by high-risk features, the invasive strategy decreased MACE for patients aged ≥65 years within 6 months (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.78) and 1 year (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.91) and showed benefits for men within 6 months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.92). In other subgroups stratified according to diabetes, ST-segment deviation, and troponin levels, no significant differences were observed between the two strategies.

Conclusions

An invasive strategy is superior to a conservative strategy in reducing early events for MI and rehospitalizations, but the invasive strategy did not improve the prognosis in long-term outcomes for patients with NSTE-ACS.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021289579, identifier PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021289579.

Effectiveness of Primary Coronary Intervention for Patients With Delayed ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Insights from Moroccan Cardiology Intensive Care Units

The benefits of myocardial revascularization in ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome after 12 to 24 hours from symptom onset remain a topic of debate, especially in patients who are stable and asymptomatic. We analyzed the benefit of late revascularization by primary coronary intervention in patients admitted to Moroccan cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after 12 hours of symptom onset. We included a total of 406 patients who met the inclusion criteria: 262 patients in the invasive strategy group and 144 patients in the conservative strategy group. A total of 74.6% were men, and 25.4% were women. For the primary outcome, 46 all-cause deaths were observed at 1 year, with 33 patients in the conservative strategy arm and 13 patients in the invasive strategy group, with a significant difference between the 2 groups (p <0.001). For secondary outcomes, there was no difference in readmission for acute coronary syndrome or acute heart failure between the 2 groups (p = 0.277, p = 0.205). For in-CICU cardiogenic shock and ejection fraction <35% at discharge, more events are observed in the conservative strategy, with a significant difference for both (p <0.001). In multivariable analysis, 1-year all-cause mortality was independently associated with revascularization between 12 and 48 hours (hazard ratio [HR] 0.372, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.182 to 0.762, p = 0.007), ejection fraction <35% at discharge (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.54, p = 0.04), and cardiogenic shock in-CICU (HR 2.69, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.78, p = 0.005).Although no evidence exists to date on the true benefit of late primary coronary intervention revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, this practice remains common, as indicated by the results of most registries.

Invasive Versus Conservative Strategies in Older Adults With Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is a common condition among older adults. However, due to frailty and comorbidities, older adults are often underrepresented in clinical trials, making the decision between an invasive or conservative approach for optimal management controversial. Our meta-analysis seeks to address this issue by focusing exclusively on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematic database literature search was conducted via PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify RCTs comparing invasive and conservative management strategies in older adults with NSTE-ACS. Data on unplanned revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI), bleeding, all-cause mortality, composite of major adverse outcomes, and stroke were extracted and pooled. Random-effects models to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analyzed using the Review Manager software. A total of seven RCTs and a total of 2997 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The invasive approach demonstrated a lower risk of unplanned revascularization (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.55; p < 0.00001; I² = 28%) and MI (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.94; p = 0.01; I² = 34%). No significant differences were found for major bleeding episodes (RR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.93, 2.14; p = 0.11), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.12; p = 0.49), composite of major adverse events (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.05; p = 0.14) and risk of stroke (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.20; p = 0.34) between the two strategies. Our findings reveal that, in older adults with NSTE-ACS, an invasive strategy reduces the risk of subsequent MI and unplanned revascularization. However, no significant differences in mortality, bleeding, or stroke were observed between the two groups.