CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

急性冠脉综合征

科研文章

荐读文献

Comparison in prevalence, predictors, and clinical outcome of VSR versus FWR after acute myocardial infarction: The prospective, multicenter registry MOODY trial-heart rupture analysis Coronary CT Angiography and 5-Year Risk of Myocardial Infarction Prognostic Value of the Residual SYNTAX Score After Functionally Complete Revascularization in ACS Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of STEMI Patients With Cardiogenic Shock and Cardiac Arrest Chronic total occlusion intervention of the non-infarct-related artery in acute myocardial infarction patients: the Korean multicenter chronic total occlusion registry High-Sensitivity Troponin and The Application of Risk Stratification Thresholds in Patients with Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome Timing of Oral P2Y12 Inhibitor Administration in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Prognostic Value of SYNTAX Score in Patients With Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From the CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial Risk Stratification Guided by the Index of Microcirculatory Resistance and Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Pressure in Acute 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