What are appropriate rates of invasive procedures following acute myocardial infarction? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence that higher rates of coronary angiography (CA) and revascularisation (RV) in the subacute phase of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) improve patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE 1990 - December 1999, Current Contents 1990-1999, Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 1999), HealthSTAR 1990-1999, selected websites and bibliographies of retrieved articles. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies selected were (1) randomised trials comparing outcomes of "invasive" versus "conservative" use of CA and RV following AMI; (2) observational studies with formal methods comparing outcomes of high versus low rates of use of these procedures; and (3) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), expert panel statements and decision analyses which met critical appraisal criteria, and which specified procedural indications. Outcome measures were rates of mortality, re-infarction and limiting or unstable angina. DATA SYNTHESIS: 56 articles were identified; 24 met inclusion criteria. Pooled data from nine RCTs of "invasive" (CA rate 96%; RV rate 66%) versus "conservative" (CA rate 28%; RV rate 19%) strategies showed no significant differences in mortality or re-infarction rates. Pooled results from 12 observational studies showed no mortality differences, but an excess reinfarction rate (8.0% vs 6.4%; P<0.001) in high- versus low-rate populations. Evidence of survival benefit from procedural intervention was strongest for patients with recurrent ischaemia combined with left ventricular dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: In the subacute phase of AMI, rates of CA and RV in excess of 30% and 20%, respectively, may not confer additional benefit in preventing death or re-infarction. However, variability between studies in design, patient selection, and extent of cross-over from medical to procedural groups, as well as limited data on symptom status, limits generalisability of results.