Post NSTEMI Invasive Strategy Timing

Post NSTEMI Invasive Strategy TimingThe aim of this meta-analysis, which included all randomized studies carried out to date, was to compare an early invasive strategy vs. a delayed invasive strategy in patients undergoing non ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).

 

Even though there is no doubt invasive strategies reduce events rate such as death and re-infarction in NSTEMI patients, the adequate time for intervention remains controversial. Waiting too long may cause events (mainly repeat angina and infarction) and rushing may be associated to periprocedural events, because plaques are too unstable, since antiaggregation and anticoagulants have had not acted yet.

 

A previous meta-analysis on early invasive strategy vs. delayed invasive strategy had included 7 randomized studies; since then there have been 3 new studies, and the present work aims at updating the information with 10 randomized studies and 6,397 patients.

 

Mean time between randomization and PCI was between 30 minutes and 14 hours in the early invasive strategy group vs. 18.3 to 86 hours in the delayed invasive strategy group.

 

There were no differences in mortality primary end point (4% early invasive vs. 4.7% delayed; CI 95%: 0.67 to 1.09; p=0.20). Acute myocardial infarction rate was also similar (6.7% vs. 7.7%; CI 95%: 0.53 to 1.45; p=0.62).

 

The early invasive strategy was associated to a reduction of recurrent ischemia and refractory angina (3.8% vs. 5.8%; CI 95%: 0.40 to 0.74; p<0.01) and also to a shorter hospital stay (mean 112 hours vs. 168 hours; p<0.01).

 

Mayor bleeding was similar between both groups (3.9% vs. 4.2%; p=0.64).

 

Conclusion

An early invasive strategy does not reduce the risk of death or acute myocardial infarction compared to a delayed strategy. A reduction of hospital stay and refractory angina was observed.

 

Editorial Comment

The RIDDLE-NSTEMI, published by J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2016, randomized 323 patients undergoing non ST elevation myocardial infarction to immediate intervention (<2 hrs. after randomization) vs. delayed intervention (2 to 72 hrs. after randomization) observing, at 30 days, primary end point of death and repeat MI was less frequent in the immediate intervention group (4.3% vs. 13%; p= 0.008).

 

This study was the first to provide evidence in favor of hard points such as death or infarction, but based only on 323 included patients, several randomized studies and 2 meta-analysis (including the present one) with contradicting results that seem insufficient to change the daily practice.

 

Original Title: Timing of Coronary Invasive Strategy in Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes and Clinical Outcomes And Updated Meta-Analysis.

Reference: Laurent Bonello et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2016;9(22):2267-2276.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

ACC 2025 | FAME 3: FFR Guided PCI vs CABG 5 Year Outcomes.

Earlier studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) have shown fewer events at long term for the surgical strategy.  However,...

CRABBIS Trial: Comparison of Different Provisional Stenting Sequences

Provisional stenting (PS) is the gold standard for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in most patients with coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL). Moreover, recent studies such...

Andromeda Trial: Meta-Analysis of Drug Coated Balloon vs. DES in Small Vessel DeNovo Lesions

The use of coronary stents vs plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), has allowed to reduce recoil and limiting flow dissection which were major limitation...

QFR vs. FFR: Is Coronary Revascularization Deferral Safe? Results from a FAVOR III Sub-Analysis

In cases of intermediate coronary lesions, functional assessment is recommended to aid the decision-making process regarding revascularization. There are several tools currently used to...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

ACC 2025 | FAME 3: FFR Guided PCI vs CABG 5 Year Outcomes.

Earlier studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) have shown fewer events at long term for the surgical strategy.  However,...

ACC 2025 | API-CAT: Reduced vs. Full Dose Extended Anticoagulation in Patients with Cancer Related VTE

The risk of cancer related recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) will drop over time, while bleeding risk will persist. At present, it is recommended we...

STRIDE: Semaglutide in Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease and Type II Diabetes

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a severe complication in patients with type II diabetes, primarily affecting peripheral vessels, especially below-the-knee (BTK) arteries. This condition...