AIM: The aim of the study is to assess the efficiency of early invasive treatment versus conservative treatment for patients with non-ST acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and to study immediate results of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in terms of the risk of adverse events. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The investigation includes 112 patients with non-ST ACS having risk of adverse outcome determined by the GRACE system. More than half of the patients (77/68.8%) underwent diagnostic coronary angiography within 72 hours of admission, and the decision was made on a subsequent treatment strategy (early invasive or conservative approach). In-hospital outcomes (cardiac deaths, nonfatal MI, reMI), cumulative frequency of these events have been studied according to the risk assessment scale GRACE and treatment strategy. RESULTS:Low risk was determined in 33.9% of patients, intermediate--in 32.1%, and high--in 33.9%. On the whole, frequency of myocardial revascularization was assessed as 56.3%. Fifty-one (45.5%) patients received early invasive treatment, 12 (10.7%)--coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). A conservative approach was used in 49 cases (43.8%). An early invasive treatment was given to 20 patients (52.6%) from each of the low- and high-risk groups, 11 (30.6%)--from the intermediate risk group. In-hospital cardiac deaths were observed only in the high-risk group, and this number was higher in case of conservative treatment versus early invasive treatment: 3 (30%) versus 1 (50%). Non-fatal MIs in the form of re(MI) were also diagnosed only in the high-risk group following conservative treatment: 2 (20.0%). Nevertheless, no reliable difference in the frequency of each complication was found (p = 0.095; p = 0.1). Significant differences in the high-risk group were proven while comparing the impact of early invasive and conservative approaches on the cumulative frequency of in-hospital death and (re)MI cases (50.0% versus 5.0%; p = 0.009). No benefits of an early invasive approach were identified for low-risk and intermediate risk groups. CONCLUSION: Early invasive approach compared with a conservative approach in high risk patients with non-ST acute coronary syndrome can improve clinical outcomes with a decrease in the total frequency of in-hospital death, reMI.
RCT Entities:
AIM: The aim of the study is to assess the efficiency of early invasive treatment versus conservative treatment for patients with non-ST acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and to study immediate results of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in terms of the risk of adverse events. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The investigation includes 112 patients with non-ST ACS having risk of adverse outcome determined by the GRACE system. More than half of the patients (77/68.8%) underwent diagnostic coronary angiography within 72 hours of admission, and the decision was made on a subsequent treatment strategy (early invasive or conservative approach). In-hospital outcomes (cardiac deaths, nonfatal MI, reMI), cumulative frequency of these events have been studied according to the risk assessment scale GRACE and treatment strategy. RESULTS: Low risk was determined in 33.9% of patients, intermediate--in 32.1%, and high--in 33.9%. On the whole, frequency of myocardial revascularization was assessed as 56.3%. Fifty-one (45.5%) patients received early invasive treatment, 12 (10.7%)--coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). A conservative approach was used in 49 cases (43.8%). An early invasive treatment was given to 20 patients (52.6%) from each of the low- and high-risk groups, 11 (30.6%)--from the intermediate risk group. In-hospital cardiac deaths were observed only in the high-risk group, and this number was higher in case of conservative treatment versus early invasive treatment: 3 (30%) versus 1 (50%). Non-fatal MIs in the form of re(MI) were also diagnosed only in the high-risk group following conservative treatment: 2 (20.0%). Nevertheless, no reliable difference in the frequency of each complication was found (p = 0.095; p = 0.1). Significant differences in the high-risk group were proven while comparing the impact of early invasive and conservative approaches on the cumulative frequency of in-hospital death and (re)MI cases (50.0% versus 5.0%; p = 0.009). No benefits of an early invasive approach were identified for low-risk and intermediate risk groups. CONCLUSION: Early invasive approach compared with a conservative approach in high risk patients with non-ST acute coronary syndrome can improve clinical outcomes with a decrease in the total frequency of in-hospital death, reMI.