Early Invasive Strategy in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome With Congestive Heart Failure ― A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ―

  • Hao K
  • Taniguchi T
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Congestive heart failure (CHF) is associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS); however, the optimal timing of invasive intervention in NSTE-ACS with CHF remains unclear. In this study, we assessed the impact of early vs. delayed invasive strategies on mortality and cardiac events by synthesizing a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of patients with NSTE-ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trials comparing early and delayed invasive strategies in patients with NSTE-ACS and CHF, published before February 2023. Observational studies were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years. Two eligible studies, including 310 participants, were identified. The primary endpoint occurred in 40 (24.5%) of 163 patients in the early invasive strategy group, compared with 39 (26.5%) of 147 patients in the delayed invasive strategy group, and the effect of an early invasive strategy on the primary outcome was uncertain (risk ratio 0.95 [95% confidence interval 0.66-1.37]). The certainty of the evidence was rated very low. CONCLUSIONS The effects of an early invasive strategy in patients with NSTE-ACS and CHF remains uncertain, with no clear reduction in composite outcome of mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years compared with delayed intervention.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hao, K., Taniguchi, T., Kojima, S., Arai, M., Aoyama, R., … Kikuchi, M. (2025). Early Invasive Strategy in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome With Congestive Heart Failure ― A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ―. Circulation Reports, 7(9), 697–704. https://doi.org/10.1253/circrep.cr-25-0104

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free