Eliano P Navarese1, Paul A Gurbel2, Felicita Andreotti3, Udaya Tantry2, Young-Hoon Jeong2, Marek Kozinski1, Thomas Engstrøm4, Giuseppe Di Pasquale5, Waclaw Kochman6, Diego Ardissino7, Elvin Kedhi8, Gregg W Stone9, Jacek Kubica1. 1. Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland 2. Sinai Center for Thrombosis Research, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland 3. Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy 4. Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark 5. Unità Ospedaliera di Cardiologia, Ospedale Maggiore, Bologna, Italy 6. Medical University of Gdansk, Swissmed Hospital, Gdansk, Poland 7. Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Parma, Parma, Italy 8. Maasstad Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands 9. Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs) is a matter of debate. Conflicting results among published studies partly relate to different risk profiles of the studied populations. PURPOSE: To do the most comprehensive meta-analysis of current evidence on early versus delayed invasive treatment in NSTE-ACS. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar databases; conference proceedings; ClinicalTrials.gov registry; and Current Controlled Trials registry through May 2012. STUDY SELECTION: Available randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing early versus delayed intervention in the NSTE-ACS population. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted for populations, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias. All-cause mortality was the prespecified primary end point. The longest follow-up available in each study was chosen. The odds ratio with 95% CI was the effect measure. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven RCTs (5370 patients) and 4 observational studies (77 499 patients) were included. Early intervention was less than 20 hours after hospitalization or randomization for RCTs and 24 hours or less for observational studies. Meta-analysis of the RCTs was inconclusive for a survival benefit associated with the early invasive strategy (odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.09]; P = 0.180); a similar result emerged from the observational studies. With early versus late intervention, the odds ratios in the RCTs were 1.15 (CI, 0.65 to 2.01; P = 0.63) and 0.76 (CI, 0.56 to 1.04; P = 0.090) for myocardial infarction and major bleeding during follow-up, respectively. LIMITATION: Current evidence from RCTs is limited by the small overall sample size, low numbers of events in some trials, and heterogeneity in the timing of intervention and in patient risk profiles. CONCLUSION: At present, there is insufficient evidence either in favor of or against an early invasive approach in the NSTE-ACS population. A more definitive RCT is warranted to guide clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs) is a matter of debate. Conflicting results among published studies partly relate to different risk profiles of the studied populations. PURPOSE: To do the most comprehensive meta-analysis of current evidence on early versus delayed invasive treatment in NSTE-ACS. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar databases; conference proceedings; ClinicalTrials.gov registry; and Current Controlled Trials registry through May 2012. STUDY SELECTION: Available randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing early versus delayed intervention in the NSTE-ACS population. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted for populations, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias. All-cause mortality was the prespecified primary end point. The longest follow-up available in each study was chosen. The odds ratio with 95% CI was the effect measure. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven RCTs (5370 patients) and 4 observational studies (77 499 patients) were included. Early intervention was less than 20 hours after hospitalization or randomization for RCTs and 24 hours or less for observational studies. Meta-analysis of the RCTs was inconclusive for a survival benefit associated with the early invasive strategy (odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.09]; P = 0.180); a similar result emerged from the observational studies. With early versus late intervention, the odds ratios in the RCTs were 1.15 (CI, 0.65 to 2.01; P = 0.63) and 0.76 (CI, 0.56 to 1.04; P = 0.090) for myocardial infarction and major bleeding during follow-up, respectively. LIMITATION: Current evidence from RCTs is limited by the small overall sample size, low numbers of events in some trials, and heterogeneity in the timing of intervention and in patient risk profiles. CONCLUSION: At present, there is insufficient evidence either in favor of or against an early invasive approach in the NSTE-ACS population. A more definitive RCT is warranted to guide clinical practice.
Authors: J Dankiewicz; N Nielsen; M Annborn; T Cronberg; D Erlinge; Y Gasche; C Hassager; J Kjaergaard; T Pellis; H Friberg Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Eliano P Navarese; Bernhard Wernly; Michael Lichtenauer; Martino Pepe; Wojciech Wanha; Giuseppe Ferrante; Lara Frediani; Verena Veulemans; Tobias Zeus; Ralf Westenfeld; Christian Jung; Paul A Gurbel Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Miguel A Maturana; Charles F Clinton; Selene Caballero-Cummings; Brandon Cave; Amal Khan; Amit Nanda; Devarshi Ardeshna; Joel Raja; Rami N Khouzam Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2019-09
Authors: Sebastian V Rojas; Mai Linh Trinh-Adams; Aitor Uribarri; Felix Fleissner; Pavel Iablonskii; Sara Rojas-Hernandez; Marcel Ricklefs; Andreas Martens; Stefan Rümke; Gregor Warnecke; Serghei Cebotari; Axel Haverich; Issam Ismail Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 2.895