Literature DB >> 16154018

5-year outcome of an interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial.

K A A Fox1, P Poole-Wilson, T C Clayton, R A Henderson, T R D Shaw, D J Wheatley, R Knight, S J Pocock.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The long-term outcome of an interventional strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome is unknown. We tested whether an interventional strategy (routine angiography followed by revascularisation) was better than a conservative strategy (ischaemia-driven or symptom-driven angiography) over 5 years' follow-up.
METHODS: In a multicentre randomised trial, 1810 patients (from 45 hospitals in England and Scotland, UK) with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome were randomly assigned to receive an early intervention (n=895) or a conservative strategy (n=915) within 48 h of the index episode of cardiac pain. In each group, the aim was to provide the best medical treatment, and also to undertake coronary arteriography within 72 h in the interventional strategy with subsequent management guided by the angiographic findings. Analysis was by intention to treat and the primary outcome (composite of death or non-fatal myocardial infarction) had masked independent adjudication. RITA 3 has been assigned the International Standard Randomised Control Trial Number ISRCTN07752711.
FINDINGS: At 1-year follow-up, rates of death or non-fatal myocardial infarction were similar. However, at a median of 5 years' follow-up (IQR 4.6-5.0), 142 (16.6%) patients with intervention treatment and 178 (20.0%) with conservative treatment died or had non-fatal myocardial infarction (odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.61-0.99, p=0.044), with a similar benefit for cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (0.74, 0.56-0.97, p=0.030). 234 (102 [12%] intervention, 132 [15%] conservative) patients died during follow-up (0.76, 0.58-1.00, p=0.054). The benefits of an intervention strategy were mainly seen in patients at high risk of death or myocardial infarction (p=0.004), and for the highest risk group, the odds ratio of death or non-fatal myocardial infarction was 0.44 (0.25-0.76).
INTERPRETATION: In patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, a routine invasive strategy leads to long-term reduction in risk of death or non-fatal myocardial infarction, and this benefit is mainly in high-risk patients. The findings provide support for national and international guidelines in the need for more robust risk stratification in acute coronary syndrome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16154018     DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67222-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  55 in total

Review 1.  Routine invasive versus conservative management strategies in acute coronary syndrome: time for a "hybrid" approach.

Authors:  Pravin Pratap; Sameer Gupta; Michael Berlowitz; Michael Berlowtiz
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 4.132

2.  Interventional versus conservative treatment in acute non-ST elevation coronary syndrome: time course of patient management and disease events over one year in the RITA 3 trial.

Authors:  P A Poole-Wilson; S J Pocock; K A A Fox; R A Henderson; D J Wheatley; D A Chamberlain; T R D Shaw; T C Clayton
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2006-04-18       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 3.  Routine invasive versus conservative management in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes.

Authors:  Peter R Sinnaeve
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 4.132

4.  Acute coronary syndromes: long-term impact of routine versus invasive ACS management.

Authors:  Charles V Pollack; George W Christy
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 32.419

5.  Intervention in acute coronary syndromes: do patients undergo intervention on the basis of their risk characteristics? The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE).

Authors:  K A A Fox; F A Anderson; O H Dabbous; P G Steg; J López-Sendón; F Van de Werf; A Budaj; E P Gurfinkel; S G Goodman; D Brieger
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2006-06-06       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 6.  Non ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: A simplified risk-orientated algorithm.

Authors:  David H Fitchett; Bjug Borgundvaag; Warren Cantor; Eric Cohen; Sanjay Dhingra; Stephen Fremes; Milan Gupta; Michael Heffernan; Heather Kertland; Mansoor Husain; Anatoly Langer; Eric Letovsky; Shaun G Goodman
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.223

7.  Risk stratification after acute myocardial infarction: is it time to reassess? Implications from the INSPIRE trial.

Authors:  John J Mahmarian; Craig M Pratt
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.952

8.  Percutaneous coronary revascularisation: is it ever worth what it costs?

Authors:  Daniel B Mark
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 5.994

9.  Association between percutaneous coronary intervention and long-term C-reactive protein levels in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Authors:  Kausik K Ray; Babak Nazer; Richard Cairns; C Michael Gibson; Christopher P Cannon
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.300

10.  Early invasive strategy and outcomes of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: is time really the major determinant?

Authors:  Cristina Giglioli; Emanuele Cecchi; Daniele Landi; Serafina Valente; Marco Chiostri; Salvatore Mario Romano; Valentina Spini; Laura Perrotta; Ignazio Simonetti; Gian Franco Gensini
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2011-06-07       Impact factor: 3.397

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.