RESUMO
BACKGROUND: An early invasive strategy (EIS) has been shown to yield a better clinical outcome than an early conservative strategy (ECS) in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACSs), particularly in those at higher risk according to the GRACE risk score. However, findings of the clinical trials have not been confirmed in registries. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the outcome of patients with NSTEACS treated according to an EIS or a ECS in a real-world all-comers outcome research study. METHODS: The primary hypothesis of the study was the non-inferiority of an ECS in comparison with an EIS as to a combined primary end-point of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and hospital readmission for acute coronary syndromes at one year. Participating centres were divided into two groups: those with a pre-specified routine EIS and those with a pre-specified routine ECS. Two statistical analyses were performed: a) an 'intention to treat' analysis: all patients were considered to be treated according to the pre-specified routine strategy of that centre; b) a 'per protocol' analysis: patients were analysed according to the actual treatment applied. Cox model including propensity score correction was applied for all analyses. RESULTS: The intention to treat analysis showed an equivalence between EIS and ECS (11.4% vs. 11.1%) with regard to the primary end-point incidence at one year. In the three subgroups of patients according to the GRACE risk score (⩽ 108, 109-140, > 140), EIS and ECS confirmed their equivalence (5.3% vs. 3.9%, 8.4% vs. 7.6%, and 20.3% vs. 20.9%, respectively). When the per protocol analysis was applied, a reduction of the primary end-point at one year with EIS vs. ECS was demonstrated (6.2% vs. 15.3%, p=0.021); analysis of the subgroups according to the GRACE risk score numerically confirmed these data (3.1% vs. 6.5%, 5.1% vs. 10.0%, and 10.8% vs. 24.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-life registry of all-comers NSTEACS patients, ECS was non-inferior to EIS; however, when EIS was applied according to clinical judgement, a reduction of clinical events at one year was demonstrated.
Assuntos
Síndrome Coronariana Aguda/terapia , Tratamento Conservador/normas , Eletrocardiografia , Análise de Intenção de Tratamento/métodos , Revascularização Miocárdica/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Tempo para o Tratamento , Síndrome Coronariana Aguda/diagnóstico , Síndrome Coronariana Aguda/fisiopatologia , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , MasculinoRESUMO
Transradial access (TRA) decreased bleeding after coronary interventions compared with femoral access (FA). However, no large study focused on arterial access-related outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes, although procedure-related bleeding significantly impaired prognosis. The aim was to evaluate access site-related outcomes of patients who underwent an invasive coronary procedure in the PRESTO-ACS Study. The cumulative primary study end point was death or reinfarction during hospitalization and at 1-year follow-up. Secondary end points were in-hospital bleeding and a net clinical outcome (combination of the primary end point and bleeding). Of 1,170 patients studied, 863 underwent a percutaneous coronary procedure using FA, and 307, using TRA. Compared with FA, TRA was associated with higher glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use (52% vs 34%; p <0.0001). The in-hospital primary end point was similar between TRA (2.6%) and FA (2.9%; p = 0.79). However, TRA was associated with a significant decrease in bleeding (0.7% vs 2.4%; p = 0.05) and a nonsignificant decrease in net clinical outcome (3.3% vs 4.6%; p = 0.30). At 1-year follow-up, the TRA group had a statistically significant decrease in death or reinfarction (4.9% vs 8.3%; p = 0.05), bleeding (0.7% vs 2.7%; p = 0.03), and net clinical outcome (5.5% vs 9.9%; p = 0.02). In conclusion, in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, use of TRA was associated with lower bleeding complications and identified patients with better long-term outcomes.
