Key result
Acute angiography in NSTEMI achieves a ~98% completion rate and shortens hospital stays versus subacute timing.
Why the study?
Does acute coronary angiography compared to subacute angiography improve process metrics and time to revascularization in patients with suspected NSTEMI?
RCT (n=250)
Does acute coronary angiography compared to subacute angiography improve process metrics and time to revascularization in patients with suspected NSTEMI?
Absolute Event Rate: 98% vs 87%
p-value: p=<0.001
Pre-hospital or immediate in-hospital triage for acute coronary angiography in suspected NSTEMI patients is feasible and significantly reduces time to revascularization and hospital stay.
Supports acute angiography to streamline NSTEMI care pathways; confirms RCT benefits on process metrics and efficiency.
BACKGROUND: The 2015 European Society of Cardiology non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) guidelines recommend angiography within 24 h in high-risk patients with NSTEMI. An organized STEMI-like approach with pre-hospital or immediate in-hospital triage for acute coronary angiography (CAG) may be of therapeutic benefit but it remains unknown whether the patients can be properly diagnosed in the pre-hospital setting. We aim to evaluate whether it is feasible to diagnose patients with NSTEMI in the pre-hospital phase or immediately upon admission. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 250 patients to either acute or subacute CAG (i.e. <72 h of admission). Pre-hospital electrocardiogram acquisition and point-of-care troponin-T measurement ensured that 148 (59%) patients were identified already in the ambulance, whereas the remaining 102 (41%) patients were identified immediately after hospital admission. An acute coronary syndrome was verified in 215 (86%) and NSTEMI in 159 (64%) patients. The CAG rate was significantly higher in the acute CAG group (98% vs. 87%, p<0.001). A culprit lesion was identified in 74% and 64% of the patients underwent coronary revascularization: acute CAG group: 53% percutaneous coronary intervention, 5% hybrid, 7% coronary artery bypass grafting; conventional treatment: 48% percutaneous coronary intervention, 2% hybrid, 14% coronary artery bypass grafting, p=0.32. In patients randomized to acute CAG, time from randomization to CAG was 1.1 h; in patients randomized to subacute CAG it was two days. Time from randomization to initial revascularization was 1.3 h versus 2.4 days, and the median hospital stay was 4.0 days versus 4.5 days. Among patients randomized to subacute CAG, 17% crossed over to acute CAG and 5% developed STEMI before catheterization. CONCLUSION: Diagnosing NSTEMI patients in the pre-hospital phase or immediately upon hospital admission is feasible. Acute CAG may impact the mode of revascularization and is associated with earlier revascularization and shorter hospital stay. The clinical benefit of acute CAG in NSTEMI patients remains to be clarified.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stengaard et al. (2016) conducted an RCT in Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (n=250). Acute coronary angiography vs. Subacute coronary angiography (<72 h of admission) was evaluated on Coronary angiography (CAG) rate (p=<0.001). Acute coronary angiography in NSTEMI patients led to a higher angiography rate (98% vs 87%, p<0.001) and shorter hospital stay compared to subacute angiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: