Background: The field of acute coronary syndromes is characterised by an increasing tendency towards early invasive catheter-based diagnostics and therapeutics—a practice based on observational and retrospective data.
Objective: To compare immediate versus deferred angioplasty in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS)
Methods: A randomised, prospective multicentre trial was performed in patients admitted with NSTE-ACS, eligible for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Interim analysis was performed after enrolment of 251 patients; PCI was appropriate in 142 patients. These patients were randomised to immediate PCI (n = 73) or deferred PCI (24–48 h) (n = 69). Patients received protocol-driven glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockers, aspirin and clopidogrel. The primary end point was a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) or unplanned revascularisation, at 30 days. After hospital discharge outpatient follow-up was performed at 30 days and 6 months.
Results: The incidence at 30 days of the primary end point was 60% in the group receiving immediate PCI and 39% in the group receiving deferred PCI (relative risk (RR) = 1.5, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.15; p = 0.004). No deaths occurred in either group. MI was significantly more common in the group receiving immediate PCI (60% vs 38%, RR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.28, p = 0.005). Unplanned revascularisation was similar in both groups. The observed difference was preserved over 6-months’ follow-up.
Conclusions: Immediate PCI was associated with an increased rate of MI in comparison with a 24–48 h deferred strategy, despite aggressive antithrombotic treatment. The results suggest that PCI for high-risk patients with non-refractory NSTE-ACS should be delayed for at least 24 h after hospital admission.
Trial registration number: ISRCTN80874637
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding: The study was supported by the Netherlands Heart Foundation: research grant number: 2003B282.
Competing interests: None.
Ethics approval: All (local) medical ethics committees approved the trial.
The funding agency had no influence on the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.