Key result
An early invasive strategy (<24 h) did not significantly reduce 30-day MACEs compared to a delayed strategy (≥24 h), though any angiography reduced MACEs versus none (5.6% vs 13.0%, P<0.001).
Why the study?
Although an invasive strategy within 24 hours is recommended for NSTEMI patients, the optimal timing of the invasive strategy remains controversial.
Does early coronary angiography (<24 h) reduce major adverse cardiac events within 30 days in patients with NSTEMI compared to delayed angiography (≥24 h)?
Population
969 NSTEMI patients from the EMPACT registry
Comparison
Early (<24 h) vs delayed (≥24 h) CAG vs no CAG
Design
Registry-based cohort study
Follow-up
30 days
Authors
Loading...
Early invasive strategy showed no short-term outcome benefit in NSTEMI; leaves open optimal timing and requires prospective trials.
Cohort (n=969)
Yes
Does early coronary angiography (<24 h) reduce major adverse cardiac events within 30 days in patients with NSTEMI compared to delayed angiography (≥24 h)?
In a real-world Chinese registry of NSTEMI patients, an early invasive strategy (<24 hours) did not reduce 30-day MACEs or mortality compared to a delayed strategy, though undergoing angiography at any time was associated with better outcomes than no angiography.
Han et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (n=969). Early invasive strategy (< 24 h) vs. Delayed invasive strategy (≥ 24 h) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) within 30 days. An early invasive strategy (<24 h) did not significantly reduce 30-day MACEs compared to a delayed strategy (≥24 h), though any angiography reduced MACEs versus none (5.6% vs 13.0%, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: