Key result
An early invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome and congestive heart failure did not significantly reduce the 2-year composite outcome of mortality and myocardial infarction compared with delayed intervention (RR 0.95).
Why the study?
CHF is associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with NSTE-ACS, but the optimal timing of invasive intervention remains unclear.
Does an early invasive strategy reduce the composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years in patients with NSTE-ACS and congestive heart failure compared to a delayed invasive strategy?
Meta-Analysis (n=310)
Does an early invasive strategy reduce the composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years in patients with NSTE-ACS and congestive heart failure compared to a delayed invasive strategy?
A meta-analysis of two RCTs found no clear evidence that an early invasive strategy reduces the 2-year risk of mortality or myocardial infarction compared with a delayed strategy in patients with NSTE-ACS and concomitant heart failure.
Background: Congestive heart failure (CHF) is associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS); however, the optimal timing of invasive intervention in NSTE-ACS with CHF remains unclear. In this study, we assessed the impact of early vs. delayed invasive strategies on mortality and cardiac events by synthesizing a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of patients with NSTE-ACS. Methods and Results: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trials comparing early and delayed invasive strategies in patients with NSTE-ACS and CHF, published before February 2023. Observational studies were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years. Two eligible studies, including 310 participants, were identified. The primary endpoint occurred in 40 (24.5%) of 163 patients in the early invasive strategy group, compared with 39 (26.5%) of 147 patients in the delayed invasive strategy group, and the effect of an early invasive strategy on the primary outcome was uncertain (risk ratio 0.95 [95% confidence interval 0.66-1.37]). The certainty of the evidence was rated very low. Conclusions: The effects of an early invasive strategy in patients with NSTE-ACS and CHF remains uncertain, with no clear reduction in composite outcome of mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years compared with delayed intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hao et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome with congestive heart failure (n=310). Early invasive strategy vs. Delayed invasive strategy was evaluated on Composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66-1.37). An early invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome and congestive heart failure did not significantly reduce the 2-year composite outcome of mortality and myocardial infarction compared with delayed intervention (RR 0.95).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: