Cited by 81Acute Myocardial Infarction ResearchCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases

Timing of Coronary Invasive Strategy in Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes and Clinical Outcomes

Open access
Bonello, Laurent, Laine, Marc, Puymirat, Etienne, Lemesle, Gilles, Thuny, Franck, Paganelli, Franck, Michelet, Pierre, Roch, Antoine +2 more·2016·JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare an early versus a delayed invasive strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes by performing a meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled clinical trials.Background An invasive approach is recommended to prevent death and myocardial infarction in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. However, the timing of angiography and the subsequent intervention, when required, remains controversial.Methods A previous meta-analysis of 7 randomized clinical trials comparing early and delayed invasive strategies in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes with 3 new randomized clinical trials identified in a search of the published research (n = 10 trials, n = 6,397 patients) was updated.Results The median time between randomization and angiography ranged from 0.5 to 14.0 h in the early group and from 18.3 to 86.0 h in the delayed group. There was no difference in the primary endpoint of mortality (4% vs. 4.7%; random-effects odds ratio [OR]: 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67 to 1.09; p = 0.20; I 2 = 0%). The rate of myocardial infarction was also similar (6.7% vs. 7.7%; random-effects OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.45; p = 0.62; I 2 = 77.5%). An early strategy was associated with a reduction in recurrent ischemia or refractory angina (3.8% vs. 5.8%; random-effects OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.74; p < 0.01; I 2 = 28%) and a shorter in-hospital stay (median 112 h [interquartile range: 61 to 158 h] vs. 168 h [interquartile range: 90.3 to 192 h]; random-effects standardized mean difference -0.40; 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.21; p < 0.01; I 2 = 79%). Major bleeding was similar in the 2 groups (3.9% vs. 4.2%; random-effects OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.22; p = 0.64; I 2 = 0%).Conclusions An early invasive strategy does not reduce the risk for death or myocardial infarction compared with a delayed strategy. Recurrent ischemia and length of stay were significantly reduced with an early invasive strategy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.09.017

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Since diabetes is one of the risk factors of poor prognosis, patients with diabetes may benefit significantly more from the early invasive approach than those without diabetes.

    “Since diabetes is one of the risk factors of poor prognosis, patients with diabetes may benefit significantly more from the early invasive approach than those without diabetes.417,443”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bonello, L., Laine, M., Puymirat, E., Lemesle, G., Thuny, F., Paganelli, F., Michelet, P., Roch, A., Kerbaul, F., & Boyer, L.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Aix-Marseille Université (FR)
  • Hôpital de la Timone (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (FR)
  • Hôpital Nord (FR)
  • Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille (FR)
Corresponding author
Bonello, Laurent
Venue
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
9
Issue
22
Pages
2267-2276
ISSN
  • 1876-7605 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-8798
OpenAlex
W2552754651
Cited by
81
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 1
FWCI
9.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Antiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Keywords
non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, early invasive strategy, coronary angiography, myocardial infarction, mortality, recurrent ischemia, refractory angina, length of hospital stay, major bleeding, clinical outcomes, randomized controlled trials meta-analysis, bleeding risk stratification
MeSH terms
Non-ST Elevated Myocardial Infarction, Coronary Artery Bypass, Hemorrhage, Humans, Length of Stay, Recurrence, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Odds Ratio, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Coronary Angiography, Risk Assessment, Acute Coronary Syndrome, Time-to-Treatment, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review