CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

急性冠脉综合征

科研文章

荐读文献

The Wait for High-Sensitivity Troponin Is Over—Proceed Cautiously Coronary Catheterization and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in China: 10-Year Results From the China PEACE-Retrospective CathPCI Study Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial Risk Stratification for Patients in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Recurrent Cardiovascular Events in Survivors of Myocardial Infarction with St-Segment Elevation (From the AMI-QUEBEC Study) Outcomes of off- and on-hours admission in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A retrospective observational cohort study Relation between door-to-balloon times and mortality after primary percutaneous coronary intervention over time: a retrospective study Percutaneous coronary intervention reduces mortality in myocardial infarction patients with comorbidities: Implications for elderly patients with diabetes or kidney disease Location of the culprit coronary lesion and its association with delay in door-to-balloon time (from a multicenter registry of primary percutaneous coronary intervention) Fine particulate air pollution and hospital admissions and readmissions for acute myocardial infarction in 26 Chinese cities

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