Key result
Immediate invasive strategy fails to improve 30-day LVEF recovery over early strategy in NSTE-ACS.
Why the study?
The timing of coronary angiography in NSTE-ACS remains debated, and its relationship with left ventricular function is largely unknown.
Does an immediate invasive strategy improve left ventricular function recovery compared to an early strategy in patients with NSTE-ACS?
RCT (n=249)
Open-label
Randomized
No
Does an immediate invasive strategy improve left ventricular function recovery compared to an early strategy in patients with NSTE-ACS?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
An immediate invasive strategy (<3 h) does not improve left ventricular ejection fraction or global longitudinal strain recovery compared to an early strategy (12-24 h) in patients with NSTE-ACS.
The timing of coronary angiography in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) remains a matter of debate. The relationship between the timing of invasive management and left ventricular function (LVF) is largely unknown. The An Immediate or Early Invasive Strategy in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome trial (OPTIMA-2) was a randomized controlled prospective open-label multicenter trial that randomized 249 NSTE-ACS patients to either an immediate (<3 h) invasive treatment strategy or an early strategy (12–24 h). Patients were pre-treated with a combination of aspirin, ticagrelor and fondaparinux. The aim of this prespecified sub-analysis was to assess (the recovery of) left ventricular function by analysing echocardiography data obtained <72 h after admission and at 30-day follow-up, for patients with a confirmed diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome. LVF was determined using ejection fraction (EF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS). Inter-observer variability was tested. No difference in the recovery of EF was found between an immediate and early strategy if the follow-up echocardiograms were compared to baseline: 2.5% (standard deviation (SD): 7.9) and 3.3% (SD: 8.5), p = 0.51, nor was there any difference in GLS recovery between the study groups: −0.8% (SD: 2.5) vs. −0.7% (SD 2.8) p = 0.82. If baseline and follow-up echocardiograms were compared, there was a similar but significant improvement in both EF and GLS in both separate study groups. An immediate invasive strategy in NSTE-ACS patients did not result in an improved left ventricular EF or GLS recovery compared with an early strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fagel et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) (n=249). Immediate invasive strategy (<3 h) vs. Early invasive strategy (12-24 h) was evaluated on Improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 30-day follow-up compared to baseline (p=0.51). An immediate invasive strategy (<3 h) did not significantly improve left ventricular ejection fraction or global longitudinal strain recovery at 30 days compared with an early strategy (12-24 h) in patients with NSTE-ACS.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: