Key result
Early invasive strategy fails to reduce death or reinfarction vs delayed strategy in high-risk NSTE-ACS.
Why the study?
Long-term outcomes comparing early versus delayed invasive strategies in high-risk NSTE-ACS patients were uncertain.
Does an early invasive strategy reduce the composite incidence of death or reinfarction in high-risk patients with NSTE-ACS compared to a delayed invasive strategy?
RCT (n=542)
Open-label
1:1 web-based
Yes
Does an early invasive strategy reduce the composite incidence of death or reinfarction in high-risk patients with NSTE-ACS compared to a delayed invasive strategy?
Relative Risk: 0.9 (95% CI 0.57–1.42)
Absolute Event Rate: 11.8% vs 13.1%
p-value: p=0.66
In high-risk NSTE-ACS patients, an early invasive strategy (<12 hours) did not significantly reduce the 2-year composite risk of death or reinfarction compared to a delayed strategy (>48 hours).
OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term outcome of an early to a delayed invasive strategy in high-risk patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: This prospective, multicentre trial included patients with NSTE-ACS and at least two out of three of the following high-risk criteria: (1) evidence of extensive myocardial ischaemia on ECG, (2) elevated biomarkers for myocardial necrosis and (3) age above 65 years. Patients were randomised to either an early (angiography and revascularisation if appropriate <12 hours) or a delayed invasive strategy (>48 hours after randomisation). Endpoint for this prespecified long-term follow-up was the composite incidence of death or reinfarction after 2 years. Data collection was performed by telephone contact with the patients, their relatives or general practitioner and by review of hospital records. RESULTS: Endpoint status after 2-year follow-up was collected in 521 of 542 initially enrolled patients. Incidence of death or reinfarction was 11.8% in the early and 13.1% in the delayed treatment group (relative risk (RR)=0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.42). No significant differences were found in occurrence of the individual components of the primary endpoint: death 6.1% vs 8.9%, RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.27), reinfarction 6.5% vs 5.4%, RR 1.20 (95% CI 0.60 to 2.38). Post-hoc subgroup analysis showed statistical significant interaction between age and treatment strategy on outcome (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years follow-up, no difference in incidence of death or reinfarction was seen between early to late invasive strategy. These findings are in line with results of other studies with longer follow-up. Older patients seem to benefit more from early invasive treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Badings et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) (n=542). Early invasive strategy vs. Delayed invasive strategy was evaluated on Composite incidence of death or reinfarction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.42, p=0.66). An early invasive strategy did not significantly reduce the composite incidence of death or reinfarction at 2 years compared to a delayed strategy in high-risk patients with NSTE-ACS (RR 0.90).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: