CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

急性冠脉综合征

科研文章

荐读文献

OPTIMAL USE OF LIPID-LOWERING THERAPY AFTER ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROMES: A Position Paper endorsed by the International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) Short Sleep Duration, Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Shiftwork, and the Risk of Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients After an Acute Coronary Syndrome Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome Association between Coronary Collaterals and Myocardial Viability in Patients with a Chronic Total Occlusion Circulating MicroRNAs and Monocyte-Platelet Aggregate Formation in Acute Coronary Syndrome Prevalence and Prognosis of Unrecognized Myocardial Infarction Determined by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Older Adults The Prognostic Significance of Periprocedural Infarction in the Era of Potent Antithrombotic Therapy: The PRAGUE-18 Substudy Prevalence of anginal symptoms and myocardial ischemia and their effect on clinical outcomes in outpatients with stable coronary artery disease: data from the International Observational CLARIFY Registry Impact of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusion in Non-Infarct-Related Arteries in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction (from the COREA-AMI Registry) Intravenous Statin Administration During Myocardial Infarction Compared With Oral Post-Infarct Administration

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