Literature DB >> 19724041

Immediate vs delayed intervention for acute coronary syndromes: a randomized clinical trial.

Gilles Montalescot1, Guillaume Cayla, Jean-Philippe Collet, Simon Elhadad, Farzin Beygui, Hervé Le Breton, Rémi Choussat, Florence Leclercq, Johanne Silvain, François Duclos, Mounir Aout, Jean-Luc Dubois-Randé, Olivier Barthélémy, Grégory Ducrocq, Anne Bellemain-Appaix, Laurent Payot, Philippe-Gabriel Steg, Patrick Henry, Christian Spaulding, Eric Vicaut.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: International guidelines recommend an early invasive strategy for patients with high-risk acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation, but the optimal timing of intervention is uncertain.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether immediate intervention on admission can result in a reduction of myocardial infarction compared with a delayed intervention. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The Angioplasty to Blunt the Rise of Troponin in Acute Coronary Syndromes Randomized for an Immediate or Delayed Intervention (ABOARD) study, a randomized clinical trial that assigned, from August 2006 through September 2008 at 13 centers in France, 352 patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation and a Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score of 3 or more to receive intervention either immediately or on the next working day (between 8 and 60 hours after enrollment). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the peak troponin value during hospitalization; the key secondary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization at 1-month follow-up.
RESULTS: Time from randomization to sheath insertion was 70 minutes with immediate intervention vs 21 hours with delayed intervention. The primary end point did not differ between the 2 strategies (median [interquartile range] troponin I value, 2.1 [0.3-7.1] ng/mL vs 1.7 [0.3-7.2] ng/mL in the immediate and delayed intervention groups, respectively; P = .70). The key secondary end point was observed in 13.7% (95% confidence interval, 8.6%-18.8%) of the group assigned to receive immediate intervention and 10.2% (95% confidence interval, 5.7%-14.6%) of the group assigned to receive delayed intervention (P = .31). The other end points, as well as major bleeding, did not differ between the 2 strategies.
CONCLUSION: In patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation, a strategy of immediate intervention compared with a strategy of intervention deferred to the next working day (mean, 21 hours) did not result in a difference in myocardial infarction as defined by peak troponin level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00442949.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19724041     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.1267

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  53 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

Review 2.  2011 ACCF/AHA focused update of the guidelines for the management of patients with Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (updating the 2007 Guideline): highlights for the clinician.

Authors:  Nanette K Wenger
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 2.882

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

Review 4.  Revascularization Strategies for Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Bennet George; Naoki Misumida; Khaled M Ziada
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 2.931

5.  Clinical effectiveness of the systematic use of the GRACE scoring system (in addition to clinical assessment) for ischaemic outcomes and bleeding complications in the management of NSTEMI compared with clinical assessment alone: a prospective study.

Authors:  Charles Guenancia; Karim Stamboul; Olivier Hachet; Valentin Yameogo; Fabien Garnier; Aurélie Gudjoncik; Yves Cottin; Luc Lorgis
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 2.037

Review 6.  P2Y12 antagonists in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: latest evidence and optimal use.

Authors:  Nicholas B Norgard; James J DiNicolantonio
Journal:  Ther Adv Chronic Dis       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 5.091

7.  Time for a new paradigm shift in myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Emre K Aslanger; H Pendell Meyers; Stephen W Smith
Journal:  Anatol J Cardiol       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 1.596

8.  Towards a reappraisal of the TACTICS TIMI 18 trial in the era of modern pharmacological and interventional therapies.

Authors:  Wail Nammas
Journal:  Heart Asia       Date:  2012-10-10

Review 9.  The 2012 ACCF/AHA Focused Update of the Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (UA/NSTEMI) Guideline: a critical appraisal.

Authors:  Hani Jneid
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2012 Jul-Sep

10.  Influence of the Timing of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Clinical Outcomes in Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Kamuran Tekin; Caglar Emre Cagliyan; Ibrahim Halil Tanboga; Mehmet Balli; Onur Kadir Uysal; Bugra Ozkan; Osman Ziya Arik; Murat Cayli
Journal:  Korean Circ J       Date:  2013-11-30       Impact factor: 3.243

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.