CBS - The 17th Left Main & Coronary Bifurcation Summit, CBS2025

HOME | SCIENTIFIC LIBRARY | Optical Coherence Tomography

Optical Coherence Tomography

The Relation Between Optical Coherence Tomography-Detected Layered Pattern and Acute Side Branch Occlusion After Provisional Stenting of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Randomized comparison of stent strut coverage following angiography- or optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention Optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segmentelevation myocardial infarction: a prospective propensity-matched cohort of the thrombectomy versus percutaneous coronary intervention alone trial Optical Coherence Tomography Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Nobori Stent Implantation in Patients With Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (OCTACS) Trial: Difference in Strut Coverage and Dynamic Malapposition Patterns at 6 Months Vascular response and healing profile of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for percutaneous treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions: A one-year optical coherence tomography analysis from the GHOST-CTO registry Optical Coherence Tomography to Optimize Results of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: Results of the Multicenter, Randomized DOCTORS Study (Does Optical Coherence Tomography Optimize Results of Stenting) Serial changes in the side-branch ostial area after main-vessel stenting with kissing balloon inflation for coronary bifurcation lesions, assessed by 3D optical coherence tomography Japan-United States of America Harmonized Assessment by Randomized Multicentre Study of OrbusNEich's Combo StEnt (Japan-USA HARMONEE) study: primary results of the pivotal registration study of combined endothelial progenitor cell capture and drug-eluting stent in patients with ischaemic coronary disease and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome

Sort by hits |<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>|

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

Abstract

Recommended Article

Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes

ABSTRACT