Timing of Angiography and Revascularization in Acute Coronary Syndromes:
- 29 April 2004
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Interventional Cardiology
- Vol. 17 (2) , 81-86
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8183.2004.021001.x
Abstract
Background: In aggregate, published randomized trials of invasive versus conservative treatment in patients with unstable angina and non‐ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction support an invasive strategy, but the optimal timing of an invasive approach is not fully established. The Treat Angina with Aggrastat and Determine Cost of Therapy with an Invasive or Conservative Strategy (TACTICS) Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI)‐18 Trial treated all patients with upstream intravenous tirofiban and heparin for 48 hours or until revascularization, and randomized subjects to an invasive or conservative approach. We hypothesized that patients who underwent earlier intervention in the invasive arm would have improved outcomes. Methods: We evaluated 1,078 participants from the invasive arm, who underwent angiography stratified by time after randomization to the procedure. The composite outcome was death, myocardial infarction (MI), or rehospitalization. Results: At 6 months, the rates of the composite outcome were 15.4 and 19.5% for those undergoing catheterization before and after 48 hours after randomization, respectively, P = 0.34. Rates of individual endpoints were similar except MI, which occurred in 2.9 versus 6.5%, in those who underwent angiography before or after 48 hours, respectively, P = 0.08. Conclusion: We could not identify a benefit to early intervention on hard endpoints. There were level time‐dependent risks of cardiac events during a period of 48 hours prior to cardiac catheterization possibly due to the effect of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibition. Considering that the groups were not randomized based on time and the potential selection bias in this analysis, these data should be considered only hypothesis generating. A prospective, randomized trial is warranted to explore whether immediate invasive strategy is better than an early invasive strategy in the setting of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibition. (J Interven Cardiol 2004;17:81–86)Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Effects of Clopidogrel in Addition to Aspirin in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes without ST-Segment ElevationNew England Journal of Medicine, 2001
- Comparison of Early Invasive and Conservative Strategies in Patients with Unstable Coronary Syndromes Treated with the Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor TirofibanNew England Journal of Medicine, 2001
- Impaired culprit vessel flow in acute coronary syndromes ineligible for thrombolysis.Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, 2000
- Invasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre studyThe Lancet, 1999
- EARLY USE OF CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY AND INTERVENTIONCardiology Clinics, 1999
- Economics, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness methods for the TACTICS (Treat Angina with Aggrastat® [tirofiban] and Determine Cost of Therapy with Invasive or Conservative Strategy)–TIMI 18 trialThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1999
- A prospective randomized trial of triage angiography in acute coronary syndromes ineligible for thrombolytic therapyJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1998
- Outcomes in Patients with Acute Non–Q-Wave Myocardial Infarction Randomly Assigned to an Invasive as Compared with a Conservative Management StrategyNew England Journal of Medicine, 1998
- One-year results of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) IIIB clinical trialJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1995
- Incidence and follow-up of Braunwald subgroups in unstable angina pectorisJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1995