Optimal timing of coronary invasive strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Eliano P. Navarese, Paul A. Gurbel, Felicita Andreotti, Udaya Tantry, Young Hoon Jeong, Marek Kozinski, Thomas Engstrøm, Giuseppe di Pasquale, Waclaw Kochman, Diego Ardissino, Elvin Kedhi, Gregg W. Stone, Jacek Kubica

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The optimal timing of coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs) is a matter of debate. Conflicting results among published studies partly relate to different risk profiles of the studied populations. Purpose: To do the most comprehensive meta-analysis of current evidence on early versus delayed invasive treatment in NSTE-ACS. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar databases; conference proceedings; ClinicalTrials.gov registry; and Current Controlled Trials registry through May 2012. Study Selection: Available randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing early versus delayed intervention in the NSTE-ACS population. Data Extraction: Data were extracted for populations, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias. All-cause mortality was the prespecified primary end point. The longest follow-up available in each study was chosen. The odds ratio with 95% CI was the effect measure. Data Synthesis: Seven RCTs (5370 patients) and 4 observational studies (77 499 patients) were included. Early intervention was less than 20 hours after hospitalization or randomization for RCTs and 24 hours or less for observational studies. Meta-analysis of the RCTs was inconclusive for a survival benefit associated with the early invasive strategy (odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.09]; P = 0.180); a similar result emerged from the observational studies. With early versus late intervention, the odds ratios in the RCTs were 1.15 (CI, 0.65 to 2.01; P = 0.63) and 0.76 (CI, 0.56 to 1.04; P = 0.090) for myocardial infarction and major bleeding during follow-up, respectively. Limitation: Current evidence from RCTs is limited by the small overall sample size, low numbers of events in some trials, and heterogeneity in the timing of intervention and in patient risk profiles. Conclusion: At present, there is insufficient evidence either in favor of or against an early invasive approach in the NSTE-ACS population. A more definitive RCT is warranted to guide clinical practice. Primary Funding Source: None.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)261-270
Number of pages10
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume158
Issue number4
StatePublished - Feb 19 2013

Fingerprint

Acute Coronary Syndrome
Meta-Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Observational Studies
Odds Ratio
Population
Registries
Information Storage and Retrieval
Random Allocation
PubMed
MEDLINE
Sample Size
Hospitalization
Myocardial Infarction
Databases
Hemorrhage
Survival
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Navarese, E. P., Gurbel, P. A., Andreotti, F., Tantry, U., Jeong, Y. H., Kozinski, M., ... Kubica, J. (2013). Optimal timing of coronary invasive strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(4), 261-270.

Optimal timing of coronary invasive strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Navarese, Eliano P.; Gurbel, Paul A.; Andreotti, Felicita; Tantry, Udaya; Jeong, Young Hoon; Kozinski, Marek; Engstrøm, Thomas; di Pasquale, Giuseppe; Kochman, Waclaw; Ardissino, Diego; Kedhi, Elvin; Stone, Gregg W.; Kubica, Jacek.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 158, No. 4, 19.02.2013, p. 261-270.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Navarese, EP, Gurbel, PA, Andreotti, F, Tantry, U, Jeong, YH, Kozinski, M, Engstrøm, T, di Pasquale, G, Kochman, W, Ardissino, D, Kedhi, E, Stone, GW & Kubica, J 2013, 'Optimal timing of coronary invasive strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis', Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 158, no. 4, pp. 261-270.
Navarese, Eliano P. ; Gurbel, Paul A. ; Andreotti, Felicita ; Tantry, Udaya ; Jeong, Young Hoon ; Kozinski, Marek ; Engstrøm, Thomas ; di Pasquale, Giuseppe ; Kochman, Waclaw ; Ardissino, Diego ; Kedhi, Elvin ; Stone, Gregg W. ; Kubica, Jacek. / Optimal timing of coronary invasive strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes : A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2013 ; Vol. 158, No. 4. pp. 261-270.
@article{0c8b24dfc02842ba967a038eea71764c,
title = "Optimal timing of coronary invasive strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background: The optimal timing of coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs) is a matter of debate. Conflicting results among published studies partly relate to different risk profiles of the studied populations. Purpose: To do the most comprehensive meta-analysis of current evidence on early versus delayed invasive treatment in NSTE-ACS. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar databases; conference proceedings; ClinicalTrials.gov registry; and Current Controlled Trials registry through May 2012. Study Selection: Available randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing early versus delayed intervention in the NSTE-ACS population. Data Extraction: Data were extracted for populations, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias. All-cause mortality was the prespecified primary end point. The longest follow-up available in each study was chosen. The odds ratio with 95{\%} CI was the effect measure. Data Synthesis: Seven RCTs (5370 patients) and 4 observational studies (77 499 patients) were included. Early intervention was less than 20 hours after hospitalization or randomization for RCTs and 24 hours or less for observational studies. Meta-analysis of the RCTs was inconclusive for a survival benefit associated with the early invasive strategy (odds ratio, 0.83 [95{\%} CI, 0.64 to 1.09]; P = 0.180); a similar result emerged from the observational studies. With early versus late intervention, the odds ratios in the RCTs were 1.15 (CI, 0.65 to 2.01; P = 0.63) and 0.76 (CI, 0.56 to 1.04; P = 0.090) for myocardial infarction and major bleeding during follow-up, respectively. Limitation: Current evidence from RCTs is limited by the small overall sample size, low numbers of events in some trials, and heterogeneity in the timing of intervention and in patient risk profiles. Conclusion: At present, there is insufficient evidence either in favor of or against an early invasive approach in the NSTE-ACS population. A more definitive RCT is warranted to guide clinical practice. Primary Funding Source: None.",
author = "Navarese, {Eliano P.} and Gurbel, {Paul A.} and Felicita Andreotti and Udaya Tantry and Jeong, {Young Hoon} and Marek Kozinski and Thomas Engstr{\o}m and {di Pasquale}, Giuseppe and Waclaw Kochman and Diego Ardissino and Elvin Kedhi and Stone, {Gregg W.} and Jacek Kubica",
year = "2013",
month = "2",
day = "19",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "158",
pages = "261--270",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Optimal timing of coronary invasive strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Navarese, Eliano P.

AU - Gurbel, Paul A.

AU - Andreotti, Felicita

AU - Tantry, Udaya

AU - Jeong, Young Hoon

AU - Kozinski, Marek

AU - Engstrøm, Thomas

AU - di Pasquale, Giuseppe

AU - Kochman, Waclaw

AU - Ardissino, Diego

AU - Kedhi, Elvin

AU - Stone, Gregg W.

AU - Kubica, Jacek

PY - 2013/2/19

Y1 - 2013/2/19

N2 - Background: The optimal timing of coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs) is a matter of debate. Conflicting results among published studies partly relate to different risk profiles of the studied populations. Purpose: To do the most comprehensive meta-analysis of current evidence on early versus delayed invasive treatment in NSTE-ACS. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar databases; conference proceedings; ClinicalTrials.gov registry; and Current Controlled Trials registry through May 2012. Study Selection: Available randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing early versus delayed intervention in the NSTE-ACS population. Data Extraction: Data were extracted for populations, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias. All-cause mortality was the prespecified primary end point. The longest follow-up available in each study was chosen. The odds ratio with 95% CI was the effect measure. Data Synthesis: Seven RCTs (5370 patients) and 4 observational studies (77 499 patients) were included. Early intervention was less than 20 hours after hospitalization or randomization for RCTs and 24 hours or less for observational studies. Meta-analysis of the RCTs was inconclusive for a survival benefit associated with the early invasive strategy (odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.09]; P = 0.180); a similar result emerged from the observational studies. With early versus late intervention, the odds ratios in the RCTs were 1.15 (CI, 0.65 to 2.01; P = 0.63) and 0.76 (CI, 0.56 to 1.04; P = 0.090) for myocardial infarction and major bleeding during follow-up, respectively. Limitation: Current evidence from RCTs is limited by the small overall sample size, low numbers of events in some trials, and heterogeneity in the timing of intervention and in patient risk profiles. Conclusion: At present, there is insufficient evidence either in favor of or against an early invasive approach in the NSTE-ACS population. A more definitive RCT is warranted to guide clinical practice. Primary Funding Source: None.

AB - Background: The optimal timing of coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs) is a matter of debate. Conflicting results among published studies partly relate to different risk profiles of the studied populations. Purpose: To do the most comprehensive meta-analysis of current evidence on early versus delayed invasive treatment in NSTE-ACS. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar databases; conference proceedings; ClinicalTrials.gov registry; and Current Controlled Trials registry through May 2012. Study Selection: Available randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing early versus delayed intervention in the NSTE-ACS population. Data Extraction: Data were extracted for populations, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias. All-cause mortality was the prespecified primary end point. The longest follow-up available in each study was chosen. The odds ratio with 95% CI was the effect measure. Data Synthesis: Seven RCTs (5370 patients) and 4 observational studies (77 499 patients) were included. Early intervention was less than 20 hours after hospitalization or randomization for RCTs and 24 hours or less for observational studies. Meta-analysis of the RCTs was inconclusive for a survival benefit associated with the early invasive strategy (odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.09]; P = 0.180); a similar result emerged from the observational studies. With early versus late intervention, the odds ratios in the RCTs were 1.15 (CI, 0.65 to 2.01; P = 0.63) and 0.76 (CI, 0.56 to 1.04; P = 0.090) for myocardial infarction and major bleeding during follow-up, respectively. Limitation: Current evidence from RCTs is limited by the small overall sample size, low numbers of events in some trials, and heterogeneity in the timing of intervention and in patient risk profiles. Conclusion: At present, there is insufficient evidence either in favor of or against an early invasive approach in the NSTE-ACS population. A more definitive RCT is warranted to guide clinical practice. Primary Funding Source: None.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84874366583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84874366583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 23420234

AN - SCOPUS:84874366583

VL - 158

SP - 261

EP - 270

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 4

ER -