Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2020
Impact of Early (≤24 h) Versus Delayed (>24 h) Intervention in Patients With Non-ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Observational Study of 20,882 Patients From the London Heart Attack Group.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Panoulas Vasileios, Rathod Krishnaraj S, Jain Ajay K, Firoozi Sam, Nevett Joanne, Kalra Sundeep S, Malik Iqbal S, Mathur Anthony, Redwood Simon, MacCarthy Philip A, Wragg Andrew, Jones Daniel A, Dalby Miles C
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography and subsequent intervention in non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients.
METHODS: We examined the impact of early (≤24 h) versus delayed (>24 h) intervention in a large observational cohort of 20,882 consecutive NSTEMI patients treated with PCI between 2005 and 2015 at 8 tertiary cardiac centers in London (UK) using Cox-regression analysis and propensity matching.
RESULTS: Mean age was 64.5 ± 12.7 years and 26.1% were females. A quarter (27.6%), were treated within 24 h. Patients treated within 24 h were slightly younger (62.8 ± 12.8 vs. 65.2 ± 12.6, p < 0.001), most commonly male (76% vs. 72.9%, p < 0.001) and were more frequently ventilated (2.3% vs. 1.4%, p < 0.001) and in cardiogenic shock (3.6% vs. 1.4%, p < 0.001) with dynamic changes on their ECG (84.5% vs. 76.1% p < 0.001). At a median follow up of 4.2 years (interquartile range 1.8 to 7) 17.7% of patients had died. Estimated 5-year survival in patients treated within 24 h was 84.6% vs. 81% for those treated >24 h following their presentation (p < 0.001). This survival benefit remained following adjustment for confounders; HR(delayed vs. early management) 1.11 (95%CI 1.003 to 1.23, p = 0.046). In the propensity matched cohort of 4356 patients in each group, there remained a trend for higher survival in the early intervention group (p = 0.061).
CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding the limitations of the retrospective design, this real-world cohort of NSTEMI patients suggests that an early intervention (≤24 h) may improve mid-term survival.
METHODS: We examined the impact of early (≤24 h) versus delayed (>24 h) intervention in a large observational cohort of 20,882 consecutive NSTEMI patients treated with PCI between 2005 and 2015 at 8 tertiary cardiac centers in London (UK) using Cox-regression analysis and propensity matching.
RESULTS: Mean age was 64.5 ± 12.7 years and 26.1% were females. A quarter (27.6%), were treated within 24 h. Patients treated within 24 h were slightly younger (62.8 ± 12.8 vs. 65.2 ± 12.6, p < 0.001), most commonly male (76% vs. 72.9%, p < 0.001) and were more frequently ventilated (2.3% vs. 1.4%, p < 0.001) and in cardiogenic shock (3.6% vs. 1.4%, p < 0.001) with dynamic changes on their ECG (84.5% vs. 76.1% p < 0.001). At a median follow up of 4.2 years (interquartile range 1.8 to 7) 17.7% of patients had died. Estimated 5-year survival in patients treated within 24 h was 84.6% vs. 81% for those treated >24 h following their presentation (p < 0.001). This survival benefit remained following adjustment for confounders; HR(delayed vs. early management) 1.11 (95%CI 1.003 to 1.23, p = 0.046). In the propensity matched cohort of 4356 patients in each group, there remained a trend for higher survival in the early intervention group (p = 0.061).
CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding the limitations of the retrospective design, this real-world cohort of NSTEMI patients suggests that an early intervention (≤24 h) may improve mid-term survival.