CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

急性冠脉综合征

科研文章

荐读文献

Phosphoproteomic Analysis of Neonatal Regenerative Myocardium Revealed Important Roles of CHK1 via Activating mTORC1/P70S6K Pathway Percutaneous Intervention for Concurrent Chronic Total Occlusions in Patients With STEMI: The EXPLORE Trial Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Diagnosis and Prognosis of Coronary Artery Disease with SPECT and PET Improved outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction during the last 20 years are related to implementation of evidence-based treatments: experiences from the SWEDEHEART registry 1995-2014 Association of the PHACTR1/EDN1 Genetic Locus With Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection Refractory Angina: From Pathophysiology to New Therapeutic Nonpharmacological Technologies Cardiovascular Mortality After Type 1 and Type 2 Myocardial Infarction in Young Adults Implications of Alternative Definitions of Peri-Procedural Myocardial Infarction After Coronary Revascularization Incidence and prognostic implication of unrecognized myocardial scar characterized by cardiac magnetic resonance in diabetic patients without clinical evidence 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