Current management of non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome: Reconciling the results of randomized controlled trials

Abhiram Prasad, Verghese Mathew, David Holmes, Bernard J. Gersh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims: Patients presenting with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome represent a heterogeneous group with regard to the severity of coronary atherosclerosis and prognosis. The conventional approach to their treatment has involved admission to the hospital for pharmacologic stabilization, subsequent mobilization, and management by either a conservative or an invasive strategy. The choice of one approach over another is guided largely by local practice patterns and the availability of invasive facilities. Methods and results: However, recent randomized trials comparing the strategies have demonstrated a superiority of the invasive strategy, particularly in patients at higher risk. Furthermore, randomized trials have provided information on refining risk stratification. On the basis of these data, we outline criteria for assessing risk and recommend that stratification be conducted at presentation using clinical features, the electrocardiogram, and biomarkers. Conclusion: Higher-risk patients should be admitted for pharmacologic stabilization and assessed by coronary angiography within 48 h with the aim of early revascularization, provided the risk of periprocedural complications is not prohibitive. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors are indicated, particularly in patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention. The conservative strategy remains appropriate for patients admitted to hospitals without invasive facilities. Patients not at high risk may be observed in a facility with cardiac monitoring such as a chest pain unit and undergo subsequent stress testing. The adoption of such an early risk stratification and revascularization-based approach is likely to result in a reduction in recurrent myocardial infarction and ischaemia, duration of hospitalization, repeat hospitalization, and mortality.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1544-1553
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Heart Journal
Volume24
Issue number17
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2003

Fingerprint

Acute Coronary Syndrome
Randomized Controlled Trials
Hospitalization
Platelet Glycoprotein GPIIb-IIIa Complex
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Coronary Angiography
Chest Pain
Myocardial Ischemia
Coronary Artery Disease
Electrocardiography
Biomarkers
Myocardial Infarction
Mortality

Keywords

  • Myocardial infarction
  • Risk
  • Unstable angina

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Current management of non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome : Reconciling the results of randomized controlled trials. / Prasad, Abhiram; Mathew, Verghese; Holmes, David; Gersh, Bernard J.

In: European Heart Journal, Vol. 24, No. 17, 09.2003, p. 1544-1553.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9c427bf19b104f0baa1e67197cf4a275,
title = "Current management of non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome: Reconciling the results of randomized controlled trials",
abstract = "Aims: Patients presenting with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome represent a heterogeneous group with regard to the severity of coronary atherosclerosis and prognosis. The conventional approach to their treatment has involved admission to the hospital for pharmacologic stabilization, subsequent mobilization, and management by either a conservative or an invasive strategy. The choice of one approach over another is guided largely by local practice patterns and the availability of invasive facilities. Methods and results: However, recent randomized trials comparing the strategies have demonstrated a superiority of the invasive strategy, particularly in patients at higher risk. Furthermore, randomized trials have provided information on refining risk stratification. On the basis of these data, we outline criteria for assessing risk and recommend that stratification be conducted at presentation using clinical features, the electrocardiogram, and biomarkers. Conclusion: Higher-risk patients should be admitted for pharmacologic stabilization and assessed by coronary angiography within 48 h with the aim of early revascularization, provided the risk of periprocedural complications is not prohibitive. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors are indicated, particularly in patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention. The conservative strategy remains appropriate for patients admitted to hospitals without invasive facilities. Patients not at high risk may be observed in a facility with cardiac monitoring such as a chest pain unit and undergo subsequent stress testing. The adoption of such an early risk stratification and revascularization-based approach is likely to result in a reduction in recurrent myocardial infarction and ischaemia, duration of hospitalization, repeat hospitalization, and mortality.",
keywords = "Myocardial infarction, Risk, Unstable angina",
author = "Abhiram Prasad and Verghese Mathew and David Holmes and Gersh, {Bernard J.}",
year = "2003",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00211-2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "1544--1553",
journal = "European Heart Journal",
issn = "0195-668X",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "17",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Current management of non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome

T2 - Reconciling the results of randomized controlled trials

AU - Prasad, Abhiram

AU - Mathew, Verghese

AU - Holmes, David

AU - Gersh, Bernard J.

PY - 2003/9

Y1 - 2003/9

N2 - Aims: Patients presenting with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome represent a heterogeneous group with regard to the severity of coronary atherosclerosis and prognosis. The conventional approach to their treatment has involved admission to the hospital for pharmacologic stabilization, subsequent mobilization, and management by either a conservative or an invasive strategy. The choice of one approach over another is guided largely by local practice patterns and the availability of invasive facilities. Methods and results: However, recent randomized trials comparing the strategies have demonstrated a superiority of the invasive strategy, particularly in patients at higher risk. Furthermore, randomized trials have provided information on refining risk stratification. On the basis of these data, we outline criteria for assessing risk and recommend that stratification be conducted at presentation using clinical features, the electrocardiogram, and biomarkers. Conclusion: Higher-risk patients should be admitted for pharmacologic stabilization and assessed by coronary angiography within 48 h with the aim of early revascularization, provided the risk of periprocedural complications is not prohibitive. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors are indicated, particularly in patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention. The conservative strategy remains appropriate for patients admitted to hospitals without invasive facilities. Patients not at high risk may be observed in a facility with cardiac monitoring such as a chest pain unit and undergo subsequent stress testing. The adoption of such an early risk stratification and revascularization-based approach is likely to result in a reduction in recurrent myocardial infarction and ischaemia, duration of hospitalization, repeat hospitalization, and mortality.

AB - Aims: Patients presenting with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome represent a heterogeneous group with regard to the severity of coronary atherosclerosis and prognosis. The conventional approach to their treatment has involved admission to the hospital for pharmacologic stabilization, subsequent mobilization, and management by either a conservative or an invasive strategy. The choice of one approach over another is guided largely by local practice patterns and the availability of invasive facilities. Methods and results: However, recent randomized trials comparing the strategies have demonstrated a superiority of the invasive strategy, particularly in patients at higher risk. Furthermore, randomized trials have provided information on refining risk stratification. On the basis of these data, we outline criteria for assessing risk and recommend that stratification be conducted at presentation using clinical features, the electrocardiogram, and biomarkers. Conclusion: Higher-risk patients should be admitted for pharmacologic stabilization and assessed by coronary angiography within 48 h with the aim of early revascularization, provided the risk of periprocedural complications is not prohibitive. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors are indicated, particularly in patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention. The conservative strategy remains appropriate for patients admitted to hospitals without invasive facilities. Patients not at high risk may be observed in a facility with cardiac monitoring such as a chest pain unit and undergo subsequent stress testing. The adoption of such an early risk stratification and revascularization-based approach is likely to result in a reduction in recurrent myocardial infarction and ischaemia, duration of hospitalization, repeat hospitalization, and mortality.

KW - Myocardial infarction

KW - Risk

KW - Unstable angina

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0043013393&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0043013393&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00211-2

DO - 10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00211-2

M3 - Article

C2 - 12927189

AN - SCOPUS:0043013393

VL - 24

SP - 1544

EP - 1553

JO - European Heart Journal

JF - European Heart Journal

SN - 0195-668X

IS - 17

ER -