Why the study?
Patients with NSTEMI remain at risk for adverse cardiac events, prompting investigation into whether early versus late intervention improves outcomes.
Does early intervention improve outcomes compared to late intervention in patients with NSTEMI?
Cohort (n=100)
Does early intervention improve outcomes compared to late intervention in patients with NSTEMI?
An early invasive approach compared with a delayed invasive approach in patients with NSTEMI does not appear to improve survival or reduce adverse cardiac events at 3 months.
Early vs late intervention yields similar NSTEMI outcomes; leaves open optimal timing pending randomized trials.
Background: Patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infraction are at risk of adverse cardiac events like death, CHF, re-infarction, stroke, major bleeding, cardiogenic shock, acute pulmonary edema and arrythmias. We aimed to investigate the outcome of early vs. late intervention in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infraction. Aim: To investigate the outcome of early vs. late intervention in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infraction. Subjects and methods: 100 eligible NSTEMI patients were included in our study and were divided into 2 groups: Group I “Early Intervention” 50 patients with door-to-balloon time < 24 hours and Group II “Late Intervention” 50 patients with door-to-balloon time >24 hours. All patients were assessed for baseline characteristics, admission data, ECG, echocardiography, angiographic data in-hospital outcome & 3 months follow up outcome. Results: An early-intervention strategy did not differ from a delayed-intervention strategy in preventing a composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, cardiogenic shock, acute pulmonary edema, major bleeding stroke and arrythmias. Conclusion: Early invasive approach compared with a delayed invasive approach in patients with Non-STEMI does not improve survivalBackground: Patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infraction are at risk of adverse cardiac events like death, CHF, re-infarction, stroke, major bleeding, cardiogenic shock, acute pulmonary edema and arrythmias. We aimed to investigate the outcome of early vs. late intervention in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infraction. Aim: To investigate the outcome of early vs. late intervention in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infraction. Subjects and methods: 100 eligible NSTEMI patients were included in our study and were divided into 2 groups: Group I “Early Intervention” 50 patients with door-to-balloon time < 24 hours and Group II “Late Intervention” 50 patients with door-to-balloon time >24 hours. All patients were assessed for baseline characteristics, admission data, ECG, echocardiography, angiographic data in-hospital outcome & 3 months follow up outcome. Results: An early-intervention strategy did not differ from a delayed-intervention strategy in preventing a composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, cardiogenic shock, acute pulmonary edema, major bleeding stroke and arrythmias. Conclusion: Early invasive approach compared with a delayed invasive approach in patients with Non-STEMI does not improve survival
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
El.Khalik et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (n=100). Early intervention (door-to-balloon time < 24 hours) vs. Late intervention (door-to-balloon time > 24 hours) was evaluated on Composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, cardiogenic shock, acute pulmonary edema, major bleeding, stroke and arrythmias.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: