The relation between the timing of percutaneous coronary intervention and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome with routine invasive strategy - Data from Taiwan acute coronary syndrome full spectrum data registry

Cheng Chun Wei, Kou Gi Shyu, Jun Jack Cheng, Hei Ming Lo, Chiung Zuan Chiu

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章

5 引文 (Scopus)

摘要

Background: Several large trials have indicated that a routine invasive strategy was favored for high-risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. However, the optimal timing for this intervention is unclear. Methods:We included patients with unstable angina or non-ST elevationmyocardial infarction (NSTEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from the Taiwan acute coronary syndrome registry. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score was used to stratify our patients into three groups: low (TIMI 0-2), intermediate (TIMI 3-4) and high risk (TIMI 5-7).We analyzed outcomes according to the timing of PCI. Results: Overall, 984 patients were included in this study. For primary outcomes including cardiac death and recurrent myocardial infarction, early PCI within 24 hours did not show benefits over late PCI (24-72 or > 72 hours) (p > 0.05) in the low and intermediate risk groups. However, in the high risk group, patients who underwent PCI after 72 hours had significantly worse primary outcomes than those who underwent PCI within 24-72 hours. For secondary outcomes including non-cardiac death, unplanned revascularization, and major bleeding, the events rate was significantly higher for early or delayed PCI in low-risk patients when compared with patients who underwent PCI within 24-72 hours. Conclusions: In our study, for high-risk NSTE-ACS patients, PCI within 24-72 hours from symptom onset is demonstrably the optimum time for PCI. Delayed PCI over 72 hours is associated with the worst outcomes and should be avoided. For patients with low risks, routine early PCI <24 hours after PCI is not beneficial.
原文英語
頁(從 - 到)39-48
頁數10
期刊Acta Cardiologica Sinica
32
發行號1
DOIs
出版狀態已發佈 - 一月 1 2016

指紋

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Acute Coronary Syndrome
Taiwan
Registries
Myocardial Infarction
Unstable Angina
Infarction
Hemorrhage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

引用此文

The relation between the timing of percutaneous coronary intervention and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome with routine invasive strategy - Data from Taiwan acute coronary syndrome full spectrum data registry. / Wei, Cheng Chun; Shyu, Kou Gi; Cheng, Jun Jack; Lo, Hei Ming; Chiu, Chiung Zuan.

於: Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 卷 32, 編號 1, 01.01.2016, p. 39-48.

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章

@article{fa223e90455b4b88bed88c5490fe9659,
title = "The relation between the timing of percutaneous coronary intervention and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome with routine invasive strategy - Data from Taiwan acute coronary syndrome full spectrum data registry",
abstract = "Background: Several large trials have indicated that a routine invasive strategy was favored for high-risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. However, the optimal timing for this intervention is unclear. Methods:We included patients with unstable angina or non-ST elevationmyocardial infarction (NSTEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from the Taiwan acute coronary syndrome registry. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score was used to stratify our patients into three groups: low (TIMI 0-2), intermediate (TIMI 3-4) and high risk (TIMI 5-7).We analyzed outcomes according to the timing of PCI. Results: Overall, 984 patients were included in this study. For primary outcomes including cardiac death and recurrent myocardial infarction, early PCI within 24 hours did not show benefits over late PCI (24-72 or > 72 hours) (p > 0.05) in the low and intermediate risk groups. However, in the high risk group, patients who underwent PCI after 72 hours had significantly worse primary outcomes than those who underwent PCI within 24-72 hours. For secondary outcomes including non-cardiac death, unplanned revascularization, and major bleeding, the events rate was significantly higher for early or delayed PCI in low-risk patients when compared with patients who underwent PCI within 24-72 hours. Conclusions: In our study, for high-risk NSTE-ACS patients, PCI within 24-72 hours from symptom onset is demonstrably the optimum time for PCI. Delayed PCI over 72 hours is associated with the worst outcomes and should be avoided. For patients with low risks, routine early PCI <24 hours after PCI is not beneficial.",
keywords = "Acute coronary syndrome, Early invasive strategy",
author = "Wei, {Cheng Chun} and Shyu, {Kou Gi} and Cheng, {Jun Jack} and Lo, {Hei Ming} and Chiu, {Chiung Zuan}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.6515/ACS20150722A",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "39--48",
journal = "Acta Cardiologica Sinica",
issn = "1011-6842",
publisher = "Republic of China Society of Cardiology",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The relation between the timing of percutaneous coronary intervention and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome with routine invasive strategy - Data from Taiwan acute coronary syndrome full spectrum data registry

AU - Wei, Cheng Chun

AU - Shyu, Kou Gi

AU - Cheng, Jun Jack

AU - Lo, Hei Ming

AU - Chiu, Chiung Zuan

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Background: Several large trials have indicated that a routine invasive strategy was favored for high-risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. However, the optimal timing for this intervention is unclear. Methods:We included patients with unstable angina or non-ST elevationmyocardial infarction (NSTEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from the Taiwan acute coronary syndrome registry. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score was used to stratify our patients into three groups: low (TIMI 0-2), intermediate (TIMI 3-4) and high risk (TIMI 5-7).We analyzed outcomes according to the timing of PCI. Results: Overall, 984 patients were included in this study. For primary outcomes including cardiac death and recurrent myocardial infarction, early PCI within 24 hours did not show benefits over late PCI (24-72 or > 72 hours) (p > 0.05) in the low and intermediate risk groups. However, in the high risk group, patients who underwent PCI after 72 hours had significantly worse primary outcomes than those who underwent PCI within 24-72 hours. For secondary outcomes including non-cardiac death, unplanned revascularization, and major bleeding, the events rate was significantly higher for early or delayed PCI in low-risk patients when compared with patients who underwent PCI within 24-72 hours. Conclusions: In our study, for high-risk NSTE-ACS patients, PCI within 24-72 hours from symptom onset is demonstrably the optimum time for PCI. Delayed PCI over 72 hours is associated with the worst outcomes and should be avoided. For patients with low risks, routine early PCI <24 hours after PCI is not beneficial.

AB - Background: Several large trials have indicated that a routine invasive strategy was favored for high-risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. However, the optimal timing for this intervention is unclear. Methods:We included patients with unstable angina or non-ST elevationmyocardial infarction (NSTEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from the Taiwan acute coronary syndrome registry. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score was used to stratify our patients into three groups: low (TIMI 0-2), intermediate (TIMI 3-4) and high risk (TIMI 5-7).We analyzed outcomes according to the timing of PCI. Results: Overall, 984 patients were included in this study. For primary outcomes including cardiac death and recurrent myocardial infarction, early PCI within 24 hours did not show benefits over late PCI (24-72 or > 72 hours) (p > 0.05) in the low and intermediate risk groups. However, in the high risk group, patients who underwent PCI after 72 hours had significantly worse primary outcomes than those who underwent PCI within 24-72 hours. For secondary outcomes including non-cardiac death, unplanned revascularization, and major bleeding, the events rate was significantly higher for early or delayed PCI in low-risk patients when compared with patients who underwent PCI within 24-72 hours. Conclusions: In our study, for high-risk NSTE-ACS patients, PCI within 24-72 hours from symptom onset is demonstrably the optimum time for PCI. Delayed PCI over 72 hours is associated with the worst outcomes and should be avoided. For patients with low risks, routine early PCI <24 hours after PCI is not beneficial.

KW - Acute coronary syndrome

KW - Early invasive strategy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955311903&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84955311903&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.6515/ACS20150722A

DO - 10.6515/ACS20150722A

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84955311903

VL - 32

SP - 39

EP - 48

JO - Acta Cardiologica Sinica

JF - Acta Cardiologica Sinica

SN - 1011-6842

IS - 1

ER -