6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Long-Term Outcome of a Routine Versus Selective Invasive Strategy in Patients With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study was designed to determine: 1) whether a routine invasive (RI) strategy reduces the long-term frequency of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) using a meta-analysis of individual patient data from all randomized studies with 5-year outcomes; and 2) whether the results are influenced by baseline risk. Pooled analyses of randomized trials show early benefit of routine intervention, but long-term results are inconsistent. The differences may reflect differing trial design, adjunctive therapies, and/or limited power. This meta-analysis (n = 5,467 patients) is designed to determine whether outcomes are improved despite trial differences. Individual patient data, with 5-year outcomes, were obtained from FRISC-II (Fragmin and Fast Revascularization during Instability in Coronary Artery Disease), ICTUS (Invasive Versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes), and RITA-3 (Randomized Trial of a Conservative Treatment Strategy Versus an Interventional Treatment Strategy in Patients with Unstable Angina) trials for a collaborative meta-analysis. A Cox regression analysis was used for a multivariable risk model, and a simplified integer model was derived. Over 5 years, 14.7% (389 of 2,721) of patients randomized to an RI strategy experienced cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI versus 17.9% (475 of 2,746) in the selective invasive (SI) strategy (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71 to 0.93; p = 0.002). The most marked treatment effect was on MI (10.0% RI strategy vs. 12.9% SI strategy), and there were consistent trends for cardiovascular deaths (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.01; p = 0.068) and all deaths (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.05). There were 2.0% to 3.8% absolute reductions in cardiovascular death or MI in the low- and intermediate-risk groups and an 11.1% absolute risk reduction in highest-risk patients. An RI strategy reduces long-term rates of cardiovascular death or MI and the largest absolute effect in seen in higher-risk patients.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Journal of the American College of Cardiology
          Journal of the American College of Cardiology
          Elsevier BV
          07351097
          June 2010
          June 2010
          : 55
          : 22
          : 2435-2445
          Article
          10.1016/j.jacc.2010.03.007
          20359842
          4a02e09c-bae8-495b-804c-b3466a4dac25
          © 2010

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          scite_

          Similar content1,249

          Cited by107