0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Articles |

Systematic Review: Comparing Routine and Selective Invasive Strategies for the Acute Coronary Syndrome

Rehan Qayyum, MD; M. Rizwan Khalid, MD; Jurga Adomaityte, MD; Stylianos P. Papadakos, MD; and Frank C. Messineo, MD
[+] Article and Author Information

From John Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, and New York Hospital Queens, Flushing, New York.


Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.

Requests for Single Reprints: Rehan Qayyum, MD, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Hospitalist Program, 600 North Wolfe Street, Park 307-A, Baltimore, MD 21287; e-mail, rqayyum@jhmi.edu.

Current Author Addresses: Drs. Qayyum and Adomaityte: Johns Hopkins Hospital, Hospitalist Program, 600 North Wolfe Street, Park 307-A, Baltimore, MD 21287.

Drs. Khalid, Papadakos, and Messineo: Kyrenia Heart Center, New York Hospital Queens, 5645 Main Street, Flushing, New York 11355.

Author Contributions: Conception and design: R. Qayyum, M.R. Khalid, J. Adomaityte.

Analysis and interpretation of the data: R. Qayyum, M.R. Khalid, J. Adomaityte, S.P. Papadakos, F.C. Messineo.

Drafting of the article: R. Qayyum, M.R. Khalid, J. Adomaityte, S.P. Papadakos, F.C. Messineo.

Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: R. Qayyum, M.R. Khalid, S.P. Papadakos, FC. Messineo.

Final approval of the article: R. Qayyum, M.R. Khalid, J. Adomaityte, S.P. Papadakos, F.C. Messineo.

Statistical expertise: R. Qayyum, M.R. Khalid.

Administrative, technical or logistic support: M.R. Khalid.

Collection and assembly of data: R. Qayyum, M.R. Khalid, J. Adomaityte.


Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(3):186-196. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-3-200802050-00005
Text Size: A A A

Our search identified 4996 potentially relevant articles (Figure 1). We found 10 trials (413) with a total of 10 648 patients that fulfilled our inclusion criteria (Table 1). The FRISC-II (FRagmin and Fast Revascularisation during InStability in Coronary artery disease II) study was the largest trial, with 2457 patients (4). The TIMI IIIB (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Ischemia IIIB) study (10), published in 1995, was the earliest trial. Of the 10 trials, 6 reported their maximum follow-up after 2000. All trials had 2 parallel groups except the FRISC-II and TIMI IIIB trials, which had factorial designs that tested other interventions. Four trials (78, 10, 13) were funded by noncommercial entities, 2 trials (5, 12) were jointly funded by commercial and noncommercial entities, 2 trials (4, 9) were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and 2 trials (6, 11) did not report funding sources. Five trials (45, 8, 11, 13) were done in Europe, and 4 (6, 910, 12) were done in North America. Only 1 small trial (7) included patients from South Africa and South Asia. All trials recruited patients from multiple emergency departments or hospitals. One trial (11) enrolled only hospitalized patients from coronary care units.

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2.
Meta-analysis of outcomes at maximum reported follow-up.

RIS = routine invasive strategy; SIS = selective invasive strategy. See footnote to Table 1 for expanded trial names.

Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3.
Meta-analysis of in-hospital outcomes.

RIS = routine invasive strategy; SIS = selective invasive strategy. See footnote to Table 1 for expanded trial names.

Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4.
Meta-analysis of outcomes at 1 year of follow-up.

RIS = routine invasive strategy; SIS = selective invasive strategy. See footnote to Table 1 for expanded trial names.

Grahic Jump Location

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Does not reflect current practice
Posted on February 24, 2008
Dharam J Kumbhani
Cleveland Clinic
Conflict of Interest: None Declared

In their systematic review, Qayyum and colleagues report that there is no mortality benefit or reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction from an early invasive strategy compared with conservative management for patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes. (1) We have conducted two prior systematic reviews on this topic, and have demonstrated a significant improvement in mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction in the same population, over a mean follow-up of 2 years. (2,3) Specifically, on analysis of 7 trials with 8,375 patients, we had noted that the incidence of all-cause mortality was 4.9% in the early invasive group, compared with 6.5% in the conservative group (risk ratio [RR]=0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 to 0.90, p=0.001), and the incidence of nonfatal myocardial infarction was 7.6% in the invasive group, versus 9.1% in the conservative group (RR=0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96, p=0.012). (2) Men and troponin positive patients were especially benefited. (3)

The main reason for this discrepancy stems from the fact that three of the trials included in the authors' meta-analysis (VANQWISH, MATE and TIMI-3B) were conducted before the current era of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and coronary stents, and hence do not reflect current standards of care. Both glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and stents have been shown to significantly increase event-free survival in patients with acute coronary syndromes, with the former even associated with a significant survival advantage. (4,5) Moreover, as the authors note, a significant proportion of patients in VANQWISH and TIMI-3B also received fibrinolytics, which is no longer considered first-line therapy for acute coronary syndromes when percutaneous coronary intervention is easily available. (1) In fact, in our meta-analysis, we had noted a non- significant increase in mortality (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.75) at 6 to 12 months when these three trials were considered separately. (2)

We are reminded again that it is critically important that systematic reviews reflect current practice. In doing so, we strongly believe that the current body of evidence demonstrates a mortality benefit and hence supports early invasive therapy compared with conservative management in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes.

References:

1. Qayyum R, Khalid MR, Adomaityte J, Papadakos SP, Messineo FC. Systematic review: comparing routine and selective invasive strategies for the acute coronary syndrome. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148: 186-96.

2. Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Rassi AN, Bhatt DL, Askari AT. Benefit of early invasive therapy in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of contemporary randomized clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48: 1319 -25.

3. Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Quiroz R, Ramchandani SR, Kenchaiah S, Antman EM. Invasive therapy along with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and intracoronary stents improves survival in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis and review of the literature. Am J Cardiol. 2004; 93: 830-5.

4. Karvouni E, Katritsis DG, Ioannidis JP. Intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists reduce mortality after percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41: 26-32.

5. Biondi-Zoccai GG, Abbate A, Agostoni P, Burzotta F, Lotrionte M, et al. Long-term benefits of an early invasive management in acute coronary syndromes depend on intracoronary stenting and aggressive antiplatelet treatment: a metaregression. Am Heart J. 2005; 149: 504-511.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared

Systematic Review: Comparing Routine and Selective Invasive Strategies for the ACS
Posted on March 17, 2008
Rehan Qayyum
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
We appreciate Dr. Kumbhani's interest in our systematic review (1). He suggests that excluding three trials (TIMI IIIB, VANQWISH, and MATE) that were performed before the current era of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa and coronary stent would yield different results. When we excluded these three trials from meta-analyses, our results did not change (relative risk [RR] for death = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 1.07; RR for nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI] = 0.82, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.17; RR for combined death and nonfatal MI = 0.84, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.10).

The discrepancy between our results and the two meta-analysis (2, 3) cited by Dr. Kumbhani is not due to inclusion of older trials but rather differences in study inclusion criteria. The two meta-analyses by Dr. Kumbhani and his group included ISAR-COOL trial (4). We excluded ISAR-COOL trial as it did not compare routine invasive with selective invasive strategy; instead, it compared 3-5 days of antithrombotic treatment with less than 6-hour treatment before coronary intervention. As almost all patients in this trial underwent angiography within 5 days of randomization, this trial does not have a selective invasive strategy arm and, in our view, should not be included in a comparative systematic review of the two strategies.

Dr. Kumbhani contends that only those trials should be included in the systematic review that performed coronary intervention according to current standards of care. One can extend this contention and argue that only those trials should be included in systematic review that met current standards of care for both coronary intervention and pharmacological therapy. This will leave only one trial, ICTUS (5), in the systematic review as it used both glycoprotein IIb/IIIa and coronary stents and had more than 90% of patients on statins. This trial, that provided currently accepted standard of care to enrolled patients, found a significant benefit of selective invasive strategy over routine invasive strategy.

References

1. Qayyum R, Khalid MR, Adomaityte J, Papadakos SP, Messineo FC. Systematic review: comparing routine and selective invasive strategies for the acute coronary syndrome. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(3):186-96.

2. Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Quiroz R, Ramchandani SR, Kenchaiah S, Antman EM. Invasive therapy along with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and intracoronary stents improves survival in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis and review of the literature. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93(7):830-5.

3. Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Rassi AN, Bhatt DL, Askari AT. Benefit of early invasive therapy in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of contemporary randomized clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(7):1319-25.

4. Neumann FJ, Kastrati A, Pogatsa-Murray G, et al. Evaluation of prolonged antithrombotic pretreatment ("cooling-off" strategy) before intervention in patients with unstable coronary syndromes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290(12):1593-9.

5. Hirsch A, Windhausen F, Tijssen JG, Verheugt FW, Cornel JH, de Winter RJ. Long-term outcome after an early invasive versus selective invasive treatment strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome and elevated cardiac troponin T (the ICTUS trial): a follow-up study. Lancet. 2007;369(9564):827-35.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared

Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)