Why the study?
Does an immediate invasive approach reduce peak CK-MB activity in patients with NSTEMI compared to early or selective invasive approaches?
Does an immediate invasive approach reduce peak CK-MB activity in patients with NSTEMI compared to early or selective invasive approaches?
In patients with NSTEMI, an immediate invasive approach (<2 hours) does not reduce infarct size or improve clinical outcomes compared to early or selective invasive strategies.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Does not support routine immediate invasive strategy in NSTEMI; reinforces early or selective invasive timing as sufficient.
AIMS: The optimal timing of intervention in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains uncertain. The aim of this multicentre trial was to assess whether an immediate invasive approach is superior to an early invasive or a selective invasive approach with respect to reduction of large infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with NSTEMI were randomized to either an immediate (<2 h after randomization; n= 201), an early (10-48 h after randomization; n= 200), or a selective invasive approach with high invasive percentage (n= 201). The primary outcome was the peak creatine kinase (CK)-myocardial band (MB) activity during index hospitalization; key secondary clinical endpoints were the composite of (i) death and non-fatal infarction; (ii) death, non-fatal infarction, and refractory ischaemia; (iii) death, non-fatal infarction, refractory ischaemia, and rehospitalization for unstable angina within 6 months. The median time from randomization to angiography was 1.1 h in the immediate vs. 18.6 h in the early and 67.2 h in the selective invasive group (P< 0.001). There was no significant difference in the peak CK-MB activity between groups. The key secondary clinical endpoints were similar between groups at 6-month follow-up: death and infarction: 21.0 vs. 16.0 vs. 14.5%; P= 0.17; death, infarction, refractory ischaemia: 20.9 vs. 21.5 vs. 22.0%; P= 0.98; death, infarction, refractory ischaemia, rehospitalization: 26.0 vs. 26.5 vs. 24.5%; P= 0.91, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In NSTEMI patients, an immediate invasive approach does not offer an advantage over an early or a selective invasive approach with respect to large myocardial infarctions as defined by peak CK-MB levels, which is supported by similar clinical outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00402675.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thiele et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: