Cited by 925Acute Myocardial Infarction ResearchCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases

Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes

Open access
Mehta, Shamir R., Granger, Christopher B., Boden, William E., Steg, Philippe Gabriel, Bassand, Jean-Pierre, Faxon, David P., Afzal, Rizwan, Chrolavicius, Susan +10 more·2009·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Earlier trials have shown that a routine invasive strategy improves outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. However, the optimal timing of such intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3031 patients with acute coronary syndromes to undergo either routine early intervention (coronary angiography < or = 24 hours after randomization) or delayed intervention (coronary angiography > or = 36 hours after randomization). The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 6 months. A prespecified secondary outcome was death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia at 6 months. RESULTS: Coronary angiography was performed in 97.6% of patients in the early-intervention group (median time, 14 hours) and in 95.7% of patients in the delayed-intervention group (median time, 50 hours). At 6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 9.6% of patients in the early-intervention group, as compared with 11.3% in the delayed-intervention group (hazard ratio in the early-intervention group, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.06; P=0.15). There was a relative reduction of 28% in the secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia in the early-intervention group (9.5%), as compared with the delayed-intervention group (12.9%) (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89; P=0.003). Prespecified analyses showed that early intervention improved the primary outcome in the third of patients who were at highest risk (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89) but not in the two thirds at low-to-intermediate risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.56; P=0.01 for heterogeneity). CONCLUSIONS: Early intervention did not differ greatly from delayed intervention in preventing the primary outcome, but it did reduce the rate of the composite secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia and was superior to delayed intervention in high-risk patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00552513.)

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa0807986

Cites

31 of 31 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Spacek R, Widimsky P, Straka Z, et al. 10. Value of first day angiography/angioplasty in evolving non-ST segment elevation myo- cardial infarction: an open multicenter randomized trial. Eur Heart J 2002;23: 230-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mehta, S. R., Granger, C. B., Boden, W. E., Steg, P. G., Bassand, J.-P., Faxon, D. P., Afzal, R., Chrolavicius, S., Jolly, S. S., Widimsky, P., Avezum, A., Rupprecht, H.-J., Zhu, J., Col, J., Natarajan, M. K., Horsman, C., Fox, K. A. A., & Yusuf, S.
Affiliations
  • Population Health Research Institute (CA)
  • Duke Clinical Research Institute (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besançon (FR)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Fu Wai Hospital (CN)
  • Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (GB)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2009-05-21
Volume
360
Issue
21
Pages
2165-2175
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2132393613
Cited by
925
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 69
FWCI
48.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ArTS Archivio della ricerca di Trieste (University of Trieste https://www.units.it/) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • AstraZeneca
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Sanofi
  • Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
  • Boston Scientific Corporation
  • Astellas Pharma
  • Servier
  • Abbott Vascular
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
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
acute coronary syndrome, non-ST-segment elevation, early invasive strategy, coronary angiography timing, myocardial infarction, refractory ischemia, mortality, high-risk patients, risk stratification, stroke, coronary revascularization, percutaneous coronary intervention
MeSH terms
Aged, Angina Pectoris, Coronary Artery Bypass, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Risk, Time Factors, Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary, Coronary Angiography, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Stroke, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Acute Coronary Syndrome

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