CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

急性冠脉综合征

科研文章

荐读文献

Prognostic impact of baseline glucose levels in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock-a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial Decade-Long Trends (2001 to 2011) in the Use of Evidence-Based Medical Therapies at the Time of Hospital Discharge for Patients Surviving Acute Myocardial Remote ischaemic conditioning and healthcare system delay in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction Analysis of reperfusion time trends in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction across New York State from 2004 to 2012 Effect of Plaque Burden and Morphology on Myocardial Blood Flow and Fractional Flow Reserve Prognostic significance of QRS fragmentation and correlation with infarct size in patients with anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the INFUSE-AMI trial Door-to-balloon time and mortality among patients undergoing primary PCI Trends in early aspirin use among patients with acute myocardial infarction in China, 2001-2011: the China PEACE-Retrospective AMI study The China Patient-centered Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events (PEACE) Prospective Study of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Study Design Non-eligibility for reperfusion therapy in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Contemporary insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR)

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