CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

Acute Coronary Syndrom

科研文章

荐读文献

Optimum Blood Pressure in Patients With Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac Arrest Prevalence of Angina Among Primary Care Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Short term outcome following acute phase switch among P2Y12 inhibitors in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome treated with PCI: A systematic review and meta-analysis including 22,500 patients from 14 studies Clinical and Angiographic Features of Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Acute Myocardial Infarction Risk Stratification Guided by the Index of Microcirculatory Resistance and Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Pressure in Acute Myocardial Infarction A randomised trial comparing two stent sizing strategies in coronary bifurcation treatment with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds - The Absorb Bifurcation Coronary (ABC) trial Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Culprit lesion location and outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial Association of Acute Procedural Results with Long-term Outcomes After CTO-PCI Coronary CT Angiography and 5-Year Risk of Myocardial Infarction

Clinical Trial2009 May 21;360(21):2165-75.

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes

Mehta SR, Granger CB, TIMACS Investigators. Keywords: Optimal timing; invasive coronary angiography; Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Earlier trials have shown that a routine invasive strategy improves outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. However, the optimal timing of such intervention remains uncertain.


METHODS - We randomly assigned 3031 patients with acute coronary syndromes to undergo either routine early intervention (coronary angiography < or = 24 hours after randomization) or delayed intervention (coronary angiography > or = 36 hours after randomization). The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 6 months. A prespecified secondary outcome was death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia at 6 months.


RESULTS - Coronary angiography was performed in 97.6% of patients in the early-intervention group (median time, 14 hours) and in 95.7% of patients in the delayed-intervention group (median time, 50 hours). At 6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 9.6% of patients in the early-intervention group, as compared with 11.3% in the delayed-intervention group (hazard ratio in the early-intervention group, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.06; P=0.15). There was a relative reduction of 28% in the secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia in the early-intervention group (9.5%), as compared with the delayed-intervention group (12.9%) (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89; P=0.003). Prespecified analyses showed that early intervention improved the primary outcome in the third of patients who were at highest risk (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89) but not in the two thirds at low-to-intermediate risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.56; P=0.01 for heterogeneity).


CONCLUSIONS - Early intervention did not differ greatly from delayed intervention in preventing the primary outcome, but it did reduce the rate of the composite secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia and was superior to delayed intervention in high-risk patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00552513.)

2009 Massachusetts Medical Society