Objective: Patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) benefit from coronary intervention, but the optimal timing for an invasive strategy is not well defined. This study aimed to determine whether an early invasive strategy (<12 hours) is superior to a delayed invasive strategy.
Methods: Twelve studies of nine randomized, controlled trials of 8586 patients were included.
Results: There were no significant differences in all-cause death (risk ratio [95% confidence interval]) (0.90, [0.77-1.06), re-myocardial infarction (re-MI) (0.95 [0.70-1.29]), major bleeding (0.97 [0.77-1.23]), and refractory ischemia (0.74 [0.53-1.05]) when we compared use of early and delayed invasive strategies. Furthermore, analysis of the effect of the chosen strategy on high-risk patients showed that the rate of composite death or re-MI was significantly decreased in patients with either a Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score >140 or with elevated troponin levels (risk ratio 0.82 [0.72-0.92]; risk ratio 0.84 [0.76-0.93], respectively).
Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that an early angiographic strategy does not improve clinical outcome in patients with NSTE-ACS. An early invasive strategy might reduce the rate of composite death or re-MI in high-risk patients with GRACE risk scores >140 or elevated cardiac markers.
Keywords: Invasive strategy; composite death; coronary angiography; early intervention; myocardial infarction; non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome.