Ali E Denktas1,2. 1. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. ali.denktas@bcm.edu. 2. MEDVAMC, 2002 Holcombe Blvd., Mail Code 111B Cardiology, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. ali.denktas@bcm.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) account for 70% of the patients with ACS. Most NSTE-ACS patients receive invasive therapies. Despite improvements in the systems of care and interventional techniques, the mortality of NSTE-ACS patients remains high, and delays in the treatment of NSTE-ACS patients continue to be a problem. This paper aims to discuss the importance of timeliness of invasive strategy in the treatment of NSTE-ACS as well as the state-of-the-art approach to this critical health problem. RECENT FINDINGS: The relatively recent guidelines and meta-analyses on the subject try to shed light on the issue of timing. The picture is now a little clearer, but still much remains to be answered. We know that the early invasive strategy at least is safe and improves recurrent ischemia and refractory angina as well as the length of stay, lowering the cost. In higher-risk patients, there is a benefit for a more aggressive approach. The definition of "early" in the early invasive strategy has evolved over the past decade and currently pertains to an invasive strategy performed within 12-24 h of presentation.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) account for 70% of the patients with ACS. Most NSTE-ACS patients receive invasive therapies. Despite improvements in the systems of care and interventional techniques, the mortality of NSTE-ACS patients remains high, and delays in the treatment of NSTE-ACS patients continue to be a problem. This paper aims to discuss the importance of timeliness of invasive strategy in the treatment of NSTE-ACS as well as the state-of-the-art approach to this critical health problem. RECENT FINDINGS: The relatively recent guidelines and meta-analyses on the subject try to shed light on the issue of timing. The picture is now a little clearer, but still much remains to be answered. We know that the early invasive strategy at least is safe and improves recurrent ischemia and refractory angina as well as the length of stay, lowering the cost. In higher-risk patients, there is a benefit for a more aggressive approach. The definition of "early" in the early invasive strategy has evolved over the past decade and currently pertains to an invasive strategy performed within 12-24 h of presentation.