Advertisement

Timing of invasive strategy in NSTE-ACS patients and effect on clinical outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

      Highlights

      • RCTs produced conflicting results on effects of early invasive strategy in NSTE-ACS.
      • Pooled data analysis showed reduction in recurrent ischemia and no mortality benefit.
      • There is high between-study heterogeneity in the reported rates of new MI.
      • Heterogeneity stems from ambiguous new MI definition and early intervention timing.
      • Impact of timing on new MI rates is stronger in studies with higher PCI rates.

      Abstract

      Background

      Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results on the effects of early versus delayed invasive strategy in NSTE-ACS patients.

      Objectives

      To perform up to date meta-analysis on the pooled data sample comparing early versus delayed invasive strategy, and to explore potential causes for the observed high statistical heterogeneity.

      Methods

      MEDLINE via Pubmed, Central, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials Registry, Current controlled study and ClinicalTrials.gov registry and relevant conference proceedings were searched. RCTs were included that directly compared early versus delayed invasive strategy and reported rates of death, new myocardial infarction (MI) and/or recurrent ischemia.

      Results

      10 RCTs with 6089 patients were included. Time to coronary angiography varied from 0.5 to 24 h in the early and from 20.5 to 86 h in the delayed group. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in mortality (OR = 0.83, 95%CI 0.64–1.08, P = 0.16), and similar new MI rates (OR = 1.02, 95%CI 0.63–1.64, P = 0.94). The rate of recurrent ischemia was reduced in patients undergoing early coronary angiography (OR = 0.56, 95%CI 0.40–0.79, P = 0.001). Subgroup analysis indicated that the rate of new MI tended to depend on the study-specific endpoint definition (p for difference between subgroups 0.11), while a meta-regression revealed association of new MI rates with the within-study delay to coronary angiography (p = 0.05).

      Conclusion

      Early invasive strategy appears to reduce the occurrence of recurrent ischemia, but confers no mortality benefit. The true effect on the occurrence of new MI is obscured by the high between-study heterogeneity that stems mainly from non-uniform timing of early intervention and new MI definitions across the trials.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Atherosclerosis
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Cannon C.P.
        • Weintraub W.S.
        • Demopoulos L.A.
        • et al.
        Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2001; 344: 1879-1887
        • Fox K.A.
        • Poole-Wilson P.A.
        • Henderson R.A.
        • et al.
        Interventional versus conservative treatment for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Randomized intervention trial of unstable angina.
        Lancet. 2002; 360: 743-751
      1. Effects of tissue plasminogen activator and a comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Results of the TIMI IIIB trial. Thrombolysis in myocardial ischemia.
        Circulation. 1994; 89: 1545-1556
        • Boden W.E.
        • O'Rourke R.A.
        • Crawford M.H.
        • et al.
        Outcomes in patients with acute non-Q-wave myocardial infarction randomly assigned to an invasive as compared with a conservative management strategy. Veterans Affairs Non-Q-Wave Infarction Strategies in Hospital (VANQWISH) Trial Investigators.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 1998; 338: 1785-1792
        • Wallentin L.
        • Lagerqvist B.
        • Husted S.
        • Kontny F.
        • Stahle E.
        • Swahn E.
        Outcome at 1 year after an invasive compared with a non-invasive strategy in unstable coronary-artery disease: the FRISC II invasive randomised trial. FRISC II Investigators. Fast Revascularisation during Instability in Coronary artery disease.
        Lancet. 2000; 356: 9-16
        • de Winter R.J.
        • Windhausen F.
        • Cornel J.H.
        • et al.
        Early invasive versus selectively invasive management for acute coronary syndromes.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2005; 353: 1095-1104
        • Bavry A.A.
        • Kumbhani D.J.
        • Rassi A.N.
        • Bhatt D.L.
        • Askari A.T.
        Benefit of early invasive therapy in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of contemporary randomized clinical trials.
        J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2006; 48: 1319-1325
        • Fox K.A.
        • Clayton T.C.
        • Damman P.
        • et al.
        Long-term outcome of a routine versus selective invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome a meta-analysis of individual patient data.
        J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010; 55: 2435-2445
        • Hoenig M.R.
        • Doust J.A.
        • Aroney C.N.
        • Scott I.A.
        Early invasive versus conservative strategies for unstable angina & non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the stent era.
        Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2006; 3 (CD004815)
        • Mehta S.R.
        • Cannon C.P.
        • Fox K.A.
        • et al.
        Routine vs selective invasive strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials.
        JAMA. 2005; 293: 2908-2917
        • O'Donoghue M.
        • Boden W.E.
        • Braunwald E.
        • et al.
        Early invasive vs conservative treatment strategies in women and men with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis.
        JAMA. 2008; 300: 71-80
        • Badings E.A.
        • The S.H.
        • Dambrink J.H.
        • et al.
        Early or late intervention in high-risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: results of the ELISA-3 trial.
        EuroIntervention. 2013; 9: 54-61
        • Mehta S.R.
        • Granger C.B.
        • Boden W.E.
        • et al.
        Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2009; 360: 2165-2175
        • Montalescot G.
        • Cayla G.
        • Collet J.P.
        • et al.
        Immediate vs delayed intervention for acute coronary syndromes: a randomized clinical trial.
        JAMA. 2009; 302: 947-954
        • Neumann F.J.
        • Kastrati A.
        • Pogatsa-Murray G.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of prolonged antithrombotic pretreatment (“cooling-off” strategy) before intervention in patients with unstable coronary syndromes: a randomized controlled trial.
        JAMA. 2003; 290: 1593-1599
        • Riezebos R.K.
        • Ronner E.
        • Ter Bals E.
        • et al.
        Immediate versus deferred coronary angioplasty in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes.
        Heart. 2009; 95: 807-812
        • Sciahbasi A.
        • Madonna M.
        • De Vita M.
        • et al.
        Comparison of immediate vs early invasive strategy in patients with first acute non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
        Clin. Cardiol. 2010; 33: 650-655
        • Tekin K.
        • Cagliyan C.E.
        • Tanboga I.H.
        • et al.
        Influence of the timing of percutaneous coronary intervention on clinical outcomes in Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
        Korean Circ. J. 2013; 43: 725-730
        • Thiele H.
        • Rach J.
        • Klein N.
        • et al.
        Optimal timing of invasive angiography in stable non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the Leipzig immediate versus early and late PercutaneouS coronary intervention triAl in NSTEMI (LIPSIA-NSTEMI Trial).
        Eur. Heart J. 2012; 33: 2035-2043
        • van 't Hof A.W.
        • de Vries S.T.
        • Dambrink J.H.
        • et al.
        A comparison of two invasive strategies in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: results of the Early or Late Intervention in unStable Angina (ELISA) pilot study. 2b/3a upstream therapy and acute coronary syndromes.
        Eur. Heart J. 2003; 24: 1401-1405
        • Zhang J.
        • Qiao S.B.
        • Zhu J.
        Outcome of patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing early or delayed intervention.
        Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi. 2010; 38: 865-869
        • Katritsis D.G.
        • Siontis G.C.
        • Kastrati A.
        • et al.
        Optimal timing of coronary angiography and potential intervention in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes.
        Eur. Heart J. 2011; 32: 32-40
        • Navarese E.P.
        • De Servi S.
        • Gibson C.M.
        • et al.
        Early vs. delayed invasive strategy in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation: a meta-analysis of randomized studies.
        QJM. 2011; 104: 193-200
        • Navarese E.P.
        • Gurbel P.A.
        • Andreotti F.
        • et al.
        Optimal timing of coronary invasive strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Ann. Intern. Med. 2013; 158: 261-270
        • Rajpurohit N.
        • Garg N.
        • Garg R.
        • et al.
        Early versus delayed percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.
        Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2013; 81: 223-231
      2. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. In: JPT H, S G, editors.: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org., 2011.

        • Liberati A.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.
        BMJ. 2009; 339: b2700
        • Mahmoud K.D.
        • Hillege H.L.
        • Lennon R.J.
        • Gersh B.J.
        • Holmes Jr., D.R.
        Timing of intervention and outcome in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: there is risk on both sides of the curve.
        Int. J. Cardiol. 2014; 177: 23-24
        • Moussa I.D.
        • Klein L.W.
        • Shah B.
        • et al.
        Consideration of a new definition of clinically relevant myocardial infarction after coronary revascularization: an expert consensus document from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI).
        J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013; 62: 1563-1570
        • White H.
        Avatar of the universal definition of periprocedural myocardial infarction.
        J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013; 62: 1571-1574