Dataset Information

Safety of Routine Invasive Versus Selective Invasive Therapy in Women with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Prior studies suggested that a routine invasive approach in the management of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is beneficial in men, but the data are less conclusive in women. One study conducted exclusively in women found that routine invasive therapy was associated with a markedly increased risk of major bleeding. This pilot randomized controlled trial compared the safety of a routine invasive versus a selective invasive strategy among women.

Methods

Women with NSTE-ACS and an additional high-risk characteristic were randomized to a routine invasive versus a selective invasive strategy. The primary outcome was the risk of major bleeding. The secondary outcome was the first occurrence of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, re-hospitalization for ACS, or major bleeding within 6 months.

Results

Twenty-three women were assigned to routine invasive therapy and 17 to selective invasive therapy. Twenty-seven women (68%) had elevated troponin T (mean 0.33 ng/mL) and/or creatinine kinase-MB (mean 23 ng/mL). The risk of major bleeding was similar with both approaches (P = 0.99). At 6 months, the secondary outcome occurred in 9% of the routine invasive group versus 18% of the selective invasive group (risk ratio = 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.09-2.63, P = 0.63).

Conclusion

This pilot study demonstrated that a routine invasive approach is safe in women. There was suggestion of benefit from routine invasive therapy compared with selective invasive therapy. These data could be used to design an appropriately powered trial to determine the optimal management strategy among women with NSTE-ACS.

SUBMITTER: Bavry AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4906082 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Early invasive management improves outcomes in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). The association between preinfarct health status and the selecting patients for early invasive management is unknown. The Prospective Registry Evaluating outcomes after Myocardial Infarctions: Events and Recovery and Translational Research Investigating Underlying disparities in acute Myocardial infarction Patients' Health status are consecutive US multicenter registries, in which the associations between preinfarct angina frequency and quality of life (both assessed by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire on admission) and the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score and referral to early invasive management (coronary angiography within 48 hours) were evaluated using Poisson regression, after adjusting for site, demographics, and clinical and psychosocial variables. Of 3,768 patients with NSTEMI, 2,182 (57.9%) patients were referred for early invasive treatment. Patients with excellent, good, or very good baseline angina-specific quality of life, respectively, were more likely to receive early angiography, even after adjustment, as compared with patients reporting poor baseline quality of life because of angina (62.1.0%, 60.9%, 59.6%, vs 51.2%; adjusted relative risk [RR]?=?1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04 to 1.16; RR?=?1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.27; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.31, respectively). Finally, patients with a GRACE score in the highest risk decile (199.5 to <321.4) had significantly lower rates of early invasive treatment (42.7%) than patients in the lowest decile of risk (67.6%; adjusted RR for continuous GRACE score per SD [1 SD?=?40 points], 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.99, p = 0.019). In conclusion, in this real-world NSTEMI cohort, patients with the highest mortality risk and worst health status were less likely to be referred for early invasive management. Further work is needed to understand the role of preinfarct health status and in-hospital treatment strategy.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious trials suggest lower long-term risk of mortality after invasive rather than non-invasive management of patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), but the trials excluded very elderly patients. We aimed to estimate the effect of invasive versus non-invasive management within 3 days of peak troponin concentration on the survival of patients aged 80 years or older with NSTEMI.MethodsRoutine clinical data for this study were obtained from five collaborating hospitals hosting NIHR Biomedical Research Centres in the UK (all tertiary centres with emergency departments). Eligible patients were 80 years old or older when they underwent troponin measurements and were diagnosed with NSTEMI between 2010 (2008 for University College Hospital) and 2017. Propensity scores (patients' estimated probability of receiving invasive management) based on pretreatment variables were derived using logistic regression; patients with high probabilities of non-invasive or invasive management were excluded. Patients who died within 3 days of peak troponin concentration without receiving invasive management were assigned to the invasive or non-invasive management groups based on their propensity scores, to mitigate immortal time bias. We estimated mortality hazard ratios comparing invasive with non-invasive management, and compared the rate of hospital admissions for heart failure.FindingsOf the 1976 patients with NSTEMI, 101 died within 3 days of their peak troponin concentration and 375 were excluded because of extreme propensity scores. The remaining 1500 patients had a median age of 86 (IQR 82-89) years of whom (845 [56%] received non-invasive management. During median follow-up of 3·0 (IQR 1·2-4·8) years, 613 (41%) patients died. The adjusted cumulative 5-year mortality was 36% in the invasive management group and 55% in the non-invasive management group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·68, 95% CI 0·55-0·84). Invasive management was associated with lower incidence of hospital admissions for heart failure (adjusted rate ratio compared with non-invasive management 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·93).InterpretationThe survival advantage of invasive compared with non-invasive management appears to extend to patients with NSTEMI who are aged 80 years or older.FundingNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, as part of the NIHR Health Informatics Collaborative.

Project description:BackgroundPerioperative antiplatelet agents potentially increase bleeding after non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The protease-activated receptor 1 antagonist vorapaxar reduced cardiovascular events and was associated with increased bleeding versus placebo in NSTE ACS, but its efficacy and safety in noncardiac surgery (NCS) remain unknown. We aimed to evaluate ischemic, bleeding, and long-term outcomes of vorapaxar in NCS after NSTE ACS.Methods and resultsIn the TRACER trial, 2202 (17.0%) patients underwent major or minor NCS after NSTE ACS over 1.5 years (median); continuing study treatment perioperatively was recommended. The primary ischemic end point for this analysis was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or urgent revascularization within 30 days of NCS. Safety outcomes included 30-day NCS bleeding and GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding. Overall, 1171 vorapaxar and 1031 placebo patients underwent NCS. Preoperative aspirin and thienopyridine use was 96.8% versus 97.7% (P=0.235) and 89.1% versus 86.1% (P=0.036) for vorapaxar versus placebo, respectively. Within 30 days of NCS, no differences were observed in the primary ischemic end point between vorapaxar and placebo groups (3.4% versus 3.9%; adjusted odds ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.33, P=0.41). Similarly, no differences in NCS bleeding (3.9% versus 3.4%; adjusted odds ratio 1.41, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.31, P=0.17) or GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding (4.2% versus 3.7%; adjusted odds ratio 1.15, 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.83, P=0.55) were observed. In a 30-day landmarked analysis, NCS patients had a higher long-term risk of the ischemic end point (adjusted hazard ratio 1.62, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.97, P<0.001) and GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio 5.63, 95% CI 3.98 to 7.97, P<0.001) versus patients who did not undergo NCS, independent of study treatment.ConclusionNCS after NSTE ACS is common and associated with more ischemic outcomes and bleeding. Vorapaxar after NSTE ACS was not associated with increased perioperative ischemic or bleeding events in patients undergoing NCS.

Project description:BackgroundAcute coronary syndrome (ACS) refers to a spectrum of life-threatening cardiac diseases usually due to coronary artery plaque rupture, subsequent thrombin generation plaque activation and thrombus formation. To date, no economic analyses have been published about the use of fondaparinux in NSTE-ACS patients in Canada. The purpose of our study is to estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of fondaparinux compared to enoxaparin for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients in a Canadian hospital setting.MethodsAs an extension of a previous published economic analysis for US patients, an event-based decision analytic model was constructed using clinical and resource use data from OASIS-5, a randomized trial of 20,078 patients from 41 countries. A public payer perspective in the hospital setting was adopted. Resource use data from the trial were valued using Canadian costs. A cost regression model was developed to estimate the mean cost of managing the clinical events over the 180 day period. Annual costs of long-term care for ACS patients were added after 180 days until death. Long-term survival was incorporated using Canadian life tables with further adjustment for additional risks associated with NSTE-ACS. Quality-of-life (utility) decrements from published sources were applied to clinical events. Lifetime costs (2009 CAD$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted annually at 5 %, were estimated for the typical patient in OASIS-5 (i.e., at mean covariate values).ResultsThe trial data showed that fondaparinux is protective against all clinical events observed in the trial. The model showed that: over 180 days, fondaparinux dominates enoxaparin, producing similar estimates of QALYs gained and saving $439; over a patient's lifetime, fondaparinux yields an ICER of $4293/QALY. Based on PSA, the probabilities that fondaparinux dominates enoxaparin (less costly and more effective) and that is cost-effective at a $50,000 threshold were 42 % and 96 %, respectively.ConclusionsIn the Canadian hospital setting, fondaparinux is cost-effective when compared to enoxaparin for the treatment of NSTE-ACS. This result holds both in the immediate post-event period and over the lifetimes of patients.