RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the effects of early versus delayed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on the outcomes at 1 year in patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). BACKGROUND: Prompt reperfusion in NSTEMI remains controversial. Randomized studies have shown conflicting results regarding the benefits of early intervention versus delayed intervention (defined as intervention performed within 24 hr vs. 24-72 hr of presentation, respectively). This study was conducted to determine the clinical outcomes post PCI in a large tertiary care center. METHODS: A propensity-matched group of 1,640 NSTEMI patients [62.4% males (n = 1,023), median age 65 years] was studied for a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure in 1 year as a primary endpoint after PCI. Patients were divided into an early intervention group (EIG) and delayed intervention group (DIG). Timing of PCI was determined by the treating interventional cardiologist. RESULTS: The primary outcome was significantly lower in the EIG than DIG (20.4% vs. 24.9%, P = 0.029), which was mainly derived from mortality benefit in the EIG. There was no difference in occurrence of death, MI, stroke, or heart failure between the groups at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: An earlier PCI in patients with NSTEMI is associated with a significant reduction in the composite outcome of death, MI, heart failure, or stroke at 1 year compared with delayed PCI. Based on this large cohort of patients from a real-world referral center, contemporary reperfusion practices in NSTEMI may need to be re-examined with a bias toward early intervention.
