Literature DB >> 16275863

Optimal timing of intervention in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: insights from the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines) Registry.

Jason W Ryan1, Eric D Peterson, Anita Y Chen, Matthew T Roe, E Magnus Ohman, Christopher P Cannon, Peter B Berger, Jorge F Saucedo, Elizabeth R DeLong, Sharon-Lise Normand, Charles V Pollack, David J Cohen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate that a routine invasive approach for patients with unstable angina (UA) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) yields improved outcomes compared with a conservative approach, but the optimal timing of this approach remains open to debate. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We used day of hospital presentation as an instrumental variable to study the impact of timing of cardiac catheterization and revascularization therapy on acute outcomes (death, reinfarction, stroke, cardiogenic shock, or congestive heart failure) among patients with UA and NSTEMI. Between January 2001 and September 2003, 56,352 patients with UA or NSTEMI were treated at 310 US hospitals participating in the CRUSADE national quality improvement initiative. Weekend patients were defined as those who presented to the hospital between 5 PM on Friday and 7 AM on Sunday. All other patients were classified as weekday. Weekday patients were similar to weekend patients in terms of demographics, clinical characteristics, and the use of medical therapies in the first 24 hours. Although overall rates of cardiac catheterization and revascularization were similar for the 2 groups, median time to catheterization was significantly longer for weekend than for weekday patients (46.3 versus 23.4 hours, P<0.0001). This delay was not associated with increased in-hospital adverse events, including death (weekend 4.4% versus weekday 4.1%, P=0.23), recurrent MI (2.9% versus 3.0%, P=0.36), or their combination (6.6% versus 6.6%, P=0.86). These findings were not affected by risk adjustment or use of alternative definitions of weekend versus weekday presentation. When weekend presentation was used as the basis for an instrumental variable analysis, we found that catheterization within the first 12 hours of presentation was associated with a nonsignificant trend toward reduced in-hospital mortality (absolute risk reduction 1.9%; 95% CI 6.7% lower to 2.9% higher; P=0.43) that decreased with longer treatment delays.
CONCLUSIONS: Although weekend presentation is associated with a delay in invasive management among patients with UA and NSTEMI, in the context of contemporary medical therapy, this does not increase adverse events. Weekend presentation appears to fulfill accepted criteria as an instrumental variable for studying the optimal timing of invasive management for acute coronary syndrome patients. Using weekend status as an instrumental variable, we found no significant benefit to early catheterization, although we could not exclude an important risk reduction, particularly for catheterization within 12 hours of presentation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16275863     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.582346

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  20 in total

1.  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 2.  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

Review 3.  [Therapy of cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction].

Authors:  M Ferrari; H R Figulla
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 0.743

4.  Epidemiology, comparative effectiveness research, and the National Institutes of Health: forces for health.

Authors:  Michael S Lauer; Richard Hodes
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.822

5.  Cardiovascular Testing and Clinical Outcomes in Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain.

Authors:  Alexander T Sandhu; Paul A Heidenreich; Jay Bhattacharya; M Kate Bundorf
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 21.873

6.  Frequency and safety of switching antithrombin therapy at a regional PCI center.

Authors:  Bina Ahmed; Colleen Thomas; Carl Kapadia; Faraz Sandhu; Sadie Mills; Faye Straight; David J Schneider; Harold L Dauerman
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.300

7.  An exploration of the association between very early rehabilitation and outcome for the patients with acute ischaemic stroke in Japan: a nationwide retrospective cohort survey.

Authors:  Hiroki Matsui; Hideki Hashimoto; Hiromasa Horiguchi; Hideo Yasunaga; Shinya Matsuda
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-07-20       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Appropriateness of diagnosis of unstable angina pectoris in patients referred for coronary arteriography.

Authors:  Alexander Goldberg; Sergey Yalonetsky; Michael Kopeliovich; Zaher Azzam; Walter Markiewicz
Journal:  Exp Clin Cardiol       Date:  2008

9.  [Timing of invasive treatment in NSTEMI: as fast as in STEMI?].

Authors:  A Jobs; I Eitel; S Desch
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 10.  Some old and some new statistical tools for outcomes research.

Authors:  Sharon-Lise T Normand
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2008-08-19       Impact factor: 29.690

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.