Journal Information
Vol. 36. Issue 2.
Pages 95-102 (March 2012)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
612
Vol. 36. Issue 2.
Pages 95-102 (March 2012)
Original
Full text access
Early invasive strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. The paradox continues
Uso de la estrategia invasiva precoz en el síndrome coronario agudo sin elevación de ST. La paradoja continúa
Visits
612
J. Latour-Péreza,
Corresponding author
jlatour@coma.es

Corresponding author.
, M.P. Fuset-Cabanesb, M. Ruano Marcob, F. del Nogal Sáezc, F.J. Felices Abadd, J. Cuñat de la Hozb, Grupo ARIAM
a Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Elche, Alicante, Spain
b Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital La Fe, Valencia, Spain
c Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Severo Ochoa, Leganés, Madrid, Spain
d Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Reina Sofía, Murcia, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Tables (4)
Table 1. Profile of the patients with NSTE ACS according to baseline risk.
Table 2. Drug treatment and diagnostic–therapeutic procedures according to baseline risk during admission to the Intensive Care Unit.
Table 3. Profile of the patients with/without catheterization in the first 72h (known predictors of catheterization in NSTE ACS).
Table 4. Independent predictors of early invasive strategy.
Show moreShow less
Abstract
Objective

Observational studies have reported a paradoxical inverse relationship between the use of an early invasive strategy (EIS) and the risk of events in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE ACS). The study objectives are: (1) to examine the association between baseline risk in patients with NSTE ACS and the use of EIS; and (2) to identify some of the factors independently associated to the use of EIS.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Intensive care units participating in the SEMICYUC ARIAM Registry.

Patients

Consecutive patients admitted with a diagnosis of NSTE-ACS within 48h of evolution between the months of April and July 2010.

Interventions

None.

Main outcomes

Coronary angiography with or without angioplasty within 72h, risk stratification using the GRACE scale.

Results

We analyzed 543 patients with NSTE-ACS, of which 194 were of low risk, 170 intermediate risk and 179 high risk. The EIS was used in 62.4% of the patients at low risk, in 60.2% of those with intermediate risk, and in 49.7% of those at high risk (p for tendency 0.0144). The EIS was used preferentially in patients with low severity and comorbidity. In the logistic regression model, EIS was independently associated to the availability of a catheterization laboratory (OR 2.22 [95%CI 1.55–3.19]), the presence of ST changes on ECG (OR 1.80 [1.23–2.64]), or the existence of a low risk of bleeding (OR 0.76 [0.66–0.88)]. Conversely, EIS was less prevalent in patients with diabetes (OR 0.60 [0.41–0.88]) or tachycardia upon admission (OR 0.54 [0 36–0.82]).

Conclusions

In 2010 there remained a lesser relative use of EIS in patients at high risk, due in part to an increased risk of bleeding in these patients.

Keywords:
Acute coronary syndrome
Angioplasty
Registries
Cohort study
Resumen
Objetivo

Algunos estudios observacionales han comunicado una paradójica menor utilización de la estrategia invasiva precoz (EIP) en los pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo sin elevación de ST (SCASEST) de alto riesgo. Los objetivos del estudio son: (1) Examinar la asociación entre el riesgo basal de los pacientes con SCASEST y el uso de una estrategia invasiva precoz (EIP) en la práctica clínica actual; (2) identificar algunos de los factores asociados de forma independiente con el uso de EIP.

Diseño

Estudio de cohortes retrospectivo

Ámbito

Unidades de cuidados intensivos participantes en el registro ARIAM-SEMICYUC.

Pacientes

Pacientes consecutivos ingresados con diagnóstico de SCASEST de menos de 48 horas de evolución entre los meses de abril-julio de 2010.

Intervenciones

Ninguna.

Variables principales

Realización de coronariografía con o sin angioplastia en las primeras 72 horas, estratificación del riesgo mediante la escala GRACE.

Resultados

Se analizaron 543 pacientes con SCASEST, de los cuales 194 eran de bajo riesgo, 170 de riesgo intermedio y 179 de riesgo alto. La EIP se utilizó en el 62,4% de los pacientes de bajo riesgo, el 60,2% de los de riesgo intermedio y el 49,7% de los de riesgo alto (p para la tendencia 0,0144). La EIP se utilizó de forma preferente en pacientes con baja gravedad y comorbilidad. En el modelo de regresión logística, la EIP se asoció de forma directa con la disponibilidad de laboratorio de hemodinámica (OR 2,22, [intervalo de confianza al 95% 1,55 a 3,19], la presencia de cambios de ST en el ECG (OR 1,80 [1,23 a 2,64]) y la existencia de un bajo riesgo hemorrágico (OR 0,76 [0,66 a 0,88]). Por el contrario, la EIP se asoció de forma negativa con la presencia de diabetes (OR 0,60 [0,41 a 0,88]) o de taquicardia al ingreso (OR 0,54 [0,36 a 0,82]).

Conclusiones

En el año 2010, persiste una menor utilización relativa de la EIP en los pacientes de alto riesgo, debido en parte al mayor riesgo hemorrágico de estos pacientes.

Palabras clave:
Síndrome coronario agudo
Angioplastia
Registros
Estudio de cohortes
Full Text
Introduction

Based on the existing scientific evidence, the main clinical practice guides recommend an early invasive strategy (EIS) in patients with medium-high risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE ACS).1–5 However, some registry-based studies have documented a paradoxically lesser utilization of early invasive strategies in high risk patients.6–12 The ARIAM-SEMICYUC study offers an opportunity to re-examine this problem based on the recent Spanish data.

The objectives of the present study are: (1) to describe the use of EIS in relation to the baseline risk of patients with NSTE ACS admitted to intensive care units (ICUs); and (2) to identify the independent predictors of the application of EIS in patients admitted due to NSTE ACS.

MethodsPatients

The ARIAM-SEMICYUC project is a voluntary registry of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) admitted to ICUs in Spain and Andorra. At present, trimestrial surveying is made, including all the consecutive patients admitted during the time period.

The present study includes the patients admitted with a diagnosis of NSTE ACS with an evolution of at least 48h from symptoms onset, and covering the period between 1 April and 15 July 2010.

During this period, a total of 43 hospitals participated in the survey (see Annex 1), with the inclusion of 1379 patients, of which 665 were admitted with a diagnosis of NSTE ACS. The GRACE score13,14 was available in 570 of these patients.

Variables

The primary outcome variable of the study was cardiac catheterization (with or without intervention) in the first 72h after admission.

The patients were stratified according to the risk of suffering major cardiac events, based on the GRACE risk score upon admission, using the cutoff points (low, medium and high risk) pre-established in the literature.11,14

In addition to the risk level, a retrospective analysis was made of different variables available in the registry, such as the baseline clinical–demographic parameters, patient treatment and evolution, and possible catheterization predictors previously described in the literature. Bleeding risk was quantified by means of an ad hoc index based on the number of independent predictors of major bleeding contemplated by the GRACE,15,16 categorized as high or low risk according to the presence of some or no risk factor.

Statistical analysis

The descriptive analysis comprised the calculation of proportions (in the case of categorical variables) and medians, with the corresponding interquartile range (in the case of continuous variables).

The contrasting of hypotheses referred to proportions was carried out using the χ2 test (or the χ2 test for trends). In the case of quantitative variables, contrasting was based on the Mann–Whitney U-test (comparisons between 2 groups), the Kruskal–Wallis test (3 or more groups) or the Cuzick test (trends in 3 or more groups). All contrasts were two-sided, with an alpha level of significance of 5%.

With the purpose of identifying independent predictors of early catheterization, the variables found in the univariate analysis to be associated to the adoption of EIS with p<0.10 were entered in a multiple logistic regression model, adopting a backwards stepwise analytical strategy in which the least significant variable was eliminated in each step. Finally, the association between each of the predictor variables and the implementation of EIS was evaluated by calculating the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

The profile of the patients, stratified according to GRACE risk level, was consistent with that of other registries8,9,11 (Table 1). The high risk group was characterized by older age, a greater proportion of women, increased comorbidity (diabetes, previous infarction, renal failure), the existence of heart failure upon admission, a high baseline bleeding risk, and increased mortality.

Table 1.

Profile of the patients with NSTE ACS according to baseline risk.

  Total  GRACEp-Value for the trend 
    Low (≤108)  Medium (109–140)  High (≥141)   
Age: median (P25P75)  67 (57.77)  54 (47.5. 60.5)  69 (63.76)  77 (72.81)  <0.0001 
Females: (%)  138/502 (27.5)  30/181 (16.6)  49/163 (30.1)  59/158 (37.3)  <0.0001 
Antecedents
Active smoker (%)  140/543 (26.8)  100/194 (51.6)  25/170 (14.7)  15/179 (8.4)  <0.0001 
Dyslipidemia (%)  281/543 (51.8)  99/194 (51.0)  82/170 (48.2)  100/179 (55.9)  0.3641 
Hypertension (%)  353/543 (65.0)  102/194 (52.6)  113/170 (66.5)  138/179 (77.1)  <0.0001 
Diabetes (%)  177/543 (32.6)  43/194 (22.2)  49/170 (28.8)  85/179 (47.5)  <0.0001 
Angina (%)  108/543 (19.9)  26/194 (13.4)  40/170 (23.5)  42/179 (23.5)  0.0138 
Previous infarction (%)  121/543 (22.3)  30/194 (15.5)  35/170 (20.6)  56/179 (31.3)  0.0003 
Previous coronariography (%)  114/543 (21.0)  27/194 (13.9)  36/170 (21.2)  51/179 (28.5)  0.0006 
Previous coronary surgery (%)  29/543 (5.3)  7/194 (3.6)  3/170 (1.8)  19/179 (10.6)  0.0032 
Previous heart failure (%)  35/543 (6.5)  3/194 (1.6)  6/170 (3.5)  26/179 (14.5)  <0.0001 
Stroke (%)  34/543 (6.3)  9/194 (4.6)  8/170 (4.7)  17/179 (9.5)  0.0562 
Peripheral arterial disease (%)  37/543 (6.8)  6/194 (3.1)  13/170 (7.7)  18/179 (10.1)  0.0075 
Chronic renal failure (%)  33/543 (6.1)  2/194 (1.0)  4/170 (2.4)  27/179 (15.1)  <0.0001 
Presentation
Cardiac arrest (%)  8/543 (1.5)  2/194 (1.0)  1/170 (0.6)  5/179 (2.8)  0.1664 
Heart rate: median (P25–P75)  78 (66. 90)  74.5 (64. 84)  74 (65. 90)  85 (70.102)  <0.0001 
Systolic BP upon admission in ICU median (P25–P75)  140 (120. 160)  149.5 (130.170)  140 (121. 160)  130 (110.149)  <0.0001 
Killip (%)          <0.0001 
400/543 (73.7)  184/194 (94.9)  152/170 (89.4)  64/179 (35.8)   
II  100/543 (18.4)  10/194 (5.2)  16/170 (9.4)  74/179 (41.3)   
III–IV  43/543 (7.9)  0/194 (0.0)  2/170 (1.2)  41/179 (22.9)   
Creatinine upon admission: median (P25P75)  1.0 (0.8. 1.24)  0.96 (0.8. 1.1)  0.96 (0.8. 1.2)  1.15 (0.9. 1.7)  0.3875 
High bleeding risk (%)  340/543 (62.6)  55/194 (28.4)  123/170 (72.4)  162/179 (90.5)  < 0.0001 
ST-segment depression (%)  285/540 (52.8)  74/192 (38.5)  85/169 (50.3)  126/179 (70.4)  <0.0001 
Troponin elevation (%)  467/525 (89.0)  158/186 (84.9)  143/166 (89.2)  161/173 (93.1)  0.0142 
Availability of hemodynamics (%)  235/543 (43.3)  89/194 (45.9)  72/170 (42.4)  74/179 (41.3)  0.3741 
Discharge from ICU
Death  13/543 (2.4)  0/177 (0.0)  1/159 (0.6)  10/157 (6.4)  <0.0001 
Voluntary discharge  3/543 (0.5)  0/177 (0.0)  0/159 (0.0)  2/157 (1.3)  0.135 
Other hospital  36/543 (6.7)  13/177 (7.3)  8/159 (5.0)  9/157 (5.7)  0.5236 
Ward  491/543 (90.4)  164/177 (92.7)  150/159 (94.3)  136/157 (86.6)  0.0585 

Regarding the drug treatment administered from symptoms onset and during admission to the ICU (Table 2), the patients at high risk were less often treated with statins and beta-blockers, with no other significant differences among the three risk levels. Likewise, risk level was directly correlated to the use of noninvasive mechanical ventilation, with a negative association to the adoption of EIS—though the differences failed to reach statistical significance.

Table 2.

Drug treatment and diagnostic–therapeutic procedures according to baseline risk during admission to the Intensive Care Unit.

  Total  GRACEp-Value for the trend 
    Low (≤108)  Medium (109–140)  High (≥141)   
Aspirin in the first 24h (%)  489/543 (90.1)  179/194 (92.3)  153/170 (90.0)  157/179 (87.7)  0.1419 
Clopidogrel (%)  471/543 (86.7)  171/194 (88.1)  148/170 (87.1)  152/179 (84.9)  0.3607 
Non-fractionated heparin (%)  23/543 (4.2)  8/194 (4.1)  10/170 (5.9)  5/179 (2.8)  0.5434 
LMWH (%)  318/543 (58.6)  117/194 (60.3)  98/170 (57.7)  103/179 (57.5)  0.5837 
Fondaparinux (%)  94/543 (17.3)  36/194 (18.6)  31/170 (18.2)  27/179 (15.1)  0.381 
AG IIb/IIIa (%)  96/543 (17.7)  37/194 (19.1)  36/170 (21.2)  23/179 (12.9)  0.1236 
ACEIs/ARA (%)  304/543 (56.0)  107/194 (55.2)  98/170 (57.7)  99/179 (55.3)  0.9669 
Beta-blockers (%)  277/543 (51.0)  113/194 (58.3)  87/170 (51.2)  77/179 (43.0)  0.0033 
Beta-blockers (excluding contraindication) (%)  276/476 (58.0)  113/178 (63.5)  87/154 (56.5)  76/144 (52.8)  0.0504 
Calcium antagonists (%)  53/543 (9.8)  16/194 (8.3)  17/170 (10.0)  20/179 (11.2)  0.3406 
Statins (%)  445/543 (82.0)  166/194 (85.6)  144/170 (84.7)  135/179 (75.4)  0.0118 
Catheterization <72h (%)  313/543 (57.6)  121/194 (62.4)  103/170 (60.2)  89/179 (49.7)  0.0144 
CVS (including transfers) (%)  25/543 (4.6)  10/194 (5.2)  9/170 (5.3)  6/179 (3.4)  0.4137 
Early PCI (%)  161/543 (29.7)  62/194 (32.0)  53/170 (31.2)  46/179 (25.7)  0.1905 
Invasive MV (%)  9/543 (1.7)  3/194 (1.6)  0/170 (0.0)  6/179 (3.4)  0.1878 
Noninvasive MV (%)  10/543 (1.8)  1/194 (0.5)  0/170 (0.0)  9/179 (5.0)  0.0014 
Echocardiogram (%)  187/543 (34.4)  66/194 (34.0)  49/170 (28.8)  72/179 (40.2)  0.2239 

AG IIb/IIIa: glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists; CVS: cardiovascular surgery; LMWH: low molecular weight heparin; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; ACEIs/ARA: angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/aldosterone receptor antagonists; MV: mechanical ventilation.

The variables associated to the implementation of EIS are summarized in Table 3. Basically, the group of patients with NSTE ACS subjected to early invasive treatment were younger, with a lesser prevalence of diabetes and of heart failure upon admission, a lesser bleeding risk, and were admitted to a hospital with the availability of a hemodynamics laboratory.

Table 3.

Profile of the patients with/without catheterization in the first 72h (known predictors of catheterization in NSTE ACS).

Variable  No early catheterization  EIS  p 
Age (4 categories)  70 (61. 78)  65 (54. 75)  0.0001 
Females (%)  86/257 (33.5)  83/349 (23.8)  0.0086 
Hospital with hemodynamics (%)  81/257 (31.5)  181/349 (51.9)  0.0001 
Bleeding risk factors      0.0001 
0 (%)  70/257 (27.2)  158/349 (45.4)   
1 (%)  68/257 (26.5)  81/349 (23.2)   
2 (%)  61/257 (23.7)  68/349 (19.5)   
3+ (%)  58/257 (22.6)  42/349 (42.0)   
Previous heart failure (%)  26/256 (10.2)  13/347 (3.8)  0.0016 
History of renal failure  21/256 (8.2)  16/347 (4.6)  0.0693 
Initial heart rate  80 (68. 96.5)  76 (65. 89)  0.0325 
Initial Killip class >1 (%)  94/256 (36.7)  77/349 (22.1)  0.0001 
ST changes (%)  143/233 (61.4)  232/337 (68.8)  0.0646 
Troponin elevation (%)  167/244 (68.4)  224/328 (68.3)  0.9696 
Previous coronariography (%)  64/256 (25)  63/347 (18.2)  0.0416 
Previous stroke (%)  17/256 (6.6)  19/347 (5.5)  0.5506 
Previous infarction (%)  70/256 (27.3)  67/347 (19.3)  0.0199 
Diabetes mellitus (%)  106/256 (41.4)  97/347 (28.0)  0.0006 

The logistic regression analysis (Table 4) identified the availability of a hemodynamics laboratory, the presence of ST-segment changes, the absence of diabetes, the absence of tachycardia upon admission, and the existence of low bleeding risk as independent predictors of the use of an invasive treatment strategy. Previous coronariography was not independently correlated to the adoption of EIS (adjusted OR 0.77, 95%CI 0.50–1.21), and did not act as an effect modifier of the association between the GRACE level and the implementation of EIS (interaction p-value=0.8425). On replacing heart rate with the Killip class, the presence of class >1 was found to be significantly associated to a lesser utilization of invasive strategies (OR 0.64, 95%CI 0.42–0.96).

Table 4.

Independent predictors of early invasive strategy.

  Odds ratio (95%CI)  p 
Availability of hemodynamics  2.22 (1.55–3.19)  <0.0001 
Bleeding risk  0.76 (0.66–0.88)  0.0003 
Heart rate >90bpm  0.54 (0.36–0.82)  0.0041 
ST changes  1.80 (1.23–2.64)  0.0024 
Diabetes  0.60 (0.41–0.88)  0.0085 
Discussion

The results of the present study confirm the inverse relationship between the risk of events and the use of an EIS in NSTE ACS, detected in previous studies.6,8–11,17,18 At first sight this is paradoxical, since it would indicate that the patients who could benefit most from such treatment are precisely the individuals in which it is least used.6–12

The reasons for this paradoxical situation have not been fully clarified. Given the greater proportion of women and elderly people in the high risk stratum, the hypothesis of lesser therapeutic effort could be considered in these individuals.7,17,19,20 However, in our study there were no other indications of inequalities in therapeutic effort according to the risk stratum involved (Table 2), and neither age nor gender were found to be independently associated to the implementation of EIS.

Given the increased frequency of prior coronariography in the patients at high risk, we must consider the possibility that improved prior knowledge of the coronary anatomy could have favored the use of a conservative strategy in these patients. However, in the multivariate analysis, antecedents of coronariography did not act as an effect modifier (interaction p-value=0.8425), and were not independently associated to the implementation of EIS (adjusted p-value=0.2501).

The dose-response association between bleeding risk and the adoption of EIS is an important finding in this study, suggesting that the lesser utilization of EIS in the patients with high GRACE scores is at least partly due to the increased bleeding risk of these patients. Form this perspective, the existence of a certain dissociation between the guides (designed in reference to ideal patients, with a single disease) and actual clinical practice (individual patients with comorbidities) could be understandable. However, this argument loses strength on considering the radial access—much less susceptible to bleeding phenomena than the femoral access.21–25

The scant utilization of an early invasive strategy in diabetic patients, reported in many studies,6,7,9,26 is more difficult to explain. Clinicians may presume the existence of multiple vessel disease not amenable to revascularization in diabetic individuals, and therefore an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio in such cases. However, this explanation does not fit well with the repeatedly demonstrated benefits derived from coronary intervention in diabetics.27–29

The association between tachycardia upon admission (an indicator of heart failure) and scant interventional practices is less well known. This association possible may be attributable to chance (type I error). However, the negative association between a Killip class of >1 and the implementation of an early invasive strategy suggests that the association is real. Alternatively, difficulties in transferring unstable patients (within or between hospital centers) to the hemodynamics laboratory, or limitations of therapeutic effort, may possibly contribute to lesser utilization of invasive strategies in these patients.

In conclusion, there is a tendency to concentrate the utilization of EIS among patients with NSTE ACS exhibiting scant comorbidity. This paradoxical situation is still far from being resolved. Clinicians therefore should carefully revise the risk–benefit relationship of interventionism in their patients,24,25 particularly among diabetics, patients with heart failure, and patients at high bleeding risk.30

Funding

The ARIAM registry is a project financed by the Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC).

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Annex 1
Investigators and centers participating in the survey 2010

Andalusia: Hospital Nuestra Señora de Valme, Sevilla: Dolores Herrera Rojas, Ana Loza Vázquez, Antonio Campanario García, José Antonio Sánchez Román, María Marín Herrero and Alejandro Úbeda Iglesias. Andorra: Hospital de Nuestra Señora de Meritxell, Andorra la Vella: Antonio Margarit Ribas. Aragon: Hospital General San Jorge, Huesca: Juan Carlos López Claver, Lorenzo Labarta Monzón, Jesús Escos Orta, Aránzazu Lander Azcona, Carlos Serón Arbeloa, Isabel Garrido Ramírez de Arellano and María Isabel Marquina Lacueva; Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza: Emilia Civeira Murillo, Luis Mariano Giner Smith, Luis Martín Villén; Hospital Maz, Zaragoza: Isabel Yuste Serrano; Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza: Joaquín Joven Lafont, José Luis Ibáñez Langa and Alejandra Morón. Navarre: Hospital Virgen del Camino, Pamplona/Iruña: José Ramos Castro. Castilla y León: Hospital Felipe II, Valladolid: Juan José Sanz Hernán; Hospital Universitario del Río Hortega, Valladolid: Marta García García and Rubén Herrán Monge. Castilla-La Mancha: Hospital General de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real: Carmen Martín Rodríguez, Mariana Portilla Botelho and Alfonso Ambros Checa; Hospital Universitario de Guadalajara: Elena Yáñez Parareda; Hospital Santa Bárbara, Puertollano: Francisca Prieto Valderrey and Emilio Moreno Millán. Catalonia: Hospital General de L’Hospitalet, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat: José Julián Berrade Zubiri; Hospital de Sabadell, Sabadell: Consuelo Guía Rambla; Hospital de Sant Boi, Sant Boi de Llobregat: Alejandra Fernández Trujillo; Hospital General de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès: Elisabet Manero Caballero and Rocío Toledo; Hospital de Terrassa, Terrassa: Joaquín Amador Amerigo. Valencian Community: Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Alicante: José Cánovas Robles, Mónica Díaz Barranco and Francisco Ángel Jaime Sánchez; Hospital Universitario de la Ribera, Alzira: Lucia Arias Portaceli, Ana Abalos García, Martín Parejo Montell and Juan Fernández Cabrera; Hospital General de Castelló, Castellón de la Plana: Patricia Casero Roig, Susana Altaba Tena and Amparo Ferrándiz; Hospital General de Elche, Elche: Jaime Latour Pérez, Eva de Miguel Balsa and Francisco Javier Coves Orts; Hospital de Manises, Manises: Mónica Talavera Peregrina. Hospital Vega Baja, Orihuela: Cristina Portillo Requena; Hospital de Requena, Valencia: Carlos José Folgado Bisbal; Hospital de Sagunto, Sagunto: Regina Calvo Embuena; Hospital Universitario de San Juan de Alicante, San Juan de Alicante: Cristina Molla Jiménez; Clínica Quirón de Valencia, Valencia: Javier Tornero López; Hospital Arnau de Vilanova, Valencia: Mercedes García, Moisés Rico Sala, Mercedes García Sanz and Eugenia de la Fuente O’Connor; Hospital Clínico Universitario, Valencia: Ricardo Oltra Chordá; Hospital Universitario La Fe, Valencia: M.ª Paz Fuset Cabanes, Isabel Madrid López, Karla Vacacela Cordova and Esther Villarreal Tello; Hospital de Vinaros, Vinaròs: M.ª Desamparados Oliva Gimeno. Extremadura: Hospital San Pedro de Alcántara, Cáceres: Eduardo Corchero, Elena Gallego Curto, Alberto Fernández Zapata and Abilio Arrasqueta Llanes; Hospital Don Benito-Villanueva de la Serena: Juan Diego Jiménez Delgado; Hospital de Mérida, Mérida: Marcelo Pérez Arriaga, Mercedes Antona Díez and Guadalupe Borge Rodríguez; Hospital Virgen del Puerto, Plasencia: Eva Guerra Nevado and Anton Arana Llanderal; Hospital de Zafra, Zafra: Miguel González Lar and Hilario Badiola Villa. Galicia: Hospital Xeral de Lugo, Lugo: María Luisa Martínez Rodríguez and Rebeca Álvarez-Lata; Complejo Hospitalario de Ourense: María José de la Torre and Román Rodríguez Álvarez-Granada; Hospital Miguel Domínguez, Pontevedra: Raúl José González González. La Rioja: Hospital San Pedro, Logroño: M.ª de la Concepción Pavía Pesquera and Lidia Martínez Camarero. Madrid: Hospital Universitario Príncipe de Asturias, Alcalá Henares: José Andrés Cambronero Galache and Cristina Martínez; Hospital del Henares, Coslada: Inés Torrejón Pérez; Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Fuenlabrada: Mercedes Rubio Regidor and Febechi Afamefule Afamefule; Hospital Severo Ochoa, Leganés: Frutos del Nogal Sáez; Hospital La Moraleja, Madrid: Miguel Ángel Palma Gamiz. Basque Country: Hospital de Cruces, Barakaldo: Katherine Garcia Castillo and Victoria Boado Varela. Asturias: Hospital San Agustín, Avilés: Josefa Rengel Jiménez. Murcia: Hospital Rafael Méndez, Lorca: Carlos Luis Albacete Moreno; Hospital General Universitario Reina Sofía, Murcia: Francisco Felices Abad, Isabel Cremades Navalón, Lisa Ortín Katnich, Fátima Martínez-Lozano Aranaga, José Luis Espinosa Berenguel, César Palazón Sánchez, Martín Vigil Velis and Carmen M. Susarte Juliá; Hospital J.M. Morales Meseguer, Murcia: Manuel José Párraga Ramírez, José Antonio García Olivas and Jesús Cánovas Vera.

References
[1]
J.L. Anderson, C.D. Adams, E.M. Antman, C.R. Bridges, R.M. Califf, D.E. Casey Jr., et al.
ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction) developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
J Am Coll Cardiol, 50 (2007), pp. e1-e157
[2]
J.P. Bassand, C.W. Hamm, D. Ardissino, E. Boersma, A. Budaj, F. Fernandez-Aviles, et al.
Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes.
Eur Heart J, 28 (2007), pp. 1598-1660
[3]
K.A. Fox, T.C. Clayton, P. Damman, S.J. Pocock, R.J. de Winter, J.G. Tijssen, et al.
Long-term outcome of a routine versus selective invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome a meta-analysis of individual patient data.
J Am Coll Cardiol, 55 (2010), pp. 2435-2445
[4]
R.S. Wright, J.L. Anderson, C.D. Adams, C.R. Bridges, D.E. Casey Jr., S.M. Ettinger, et al.
2011 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in collaboration with the American Academy of Family Physicians, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
J Am Coll Cardiol, 57 (2011), pp. e215-e367
[5]
E. Civeira Murillo, F. Del Nogal Saez, A.P. Alvarez Ruiz, J. Ferrero Zorita, A.G. Alcantara, G.H. Aguado, et al.
Recomendaciones para el diagnóstico y tratamiento del síndrome coronario agudo sin elevación del segmento ST.
Med Intensiva, 34 (2010), pp. 22-45
[6]
D.L. Bhatt, M.T. Roe, E.D. Peterson, Y. Li, A.Y. Chen, R.A. Harrington, et al.
Utilization of early invasive management strategies for high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE quality improvement initiative.
JAMA, 292 (2004), pp. 2096-2104
[7]
T.A. Stukel, F.L. Lucas, D.E. Wennberg.
Long-term outcomes of regional variations in intensity of invasive vs medical management of medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction.
JAMA, 293 (2005), pp. 1329-1337
[8]
M.I. Zia, S.G. Goodman, E.D. Peterson, J. Mulgund, A.Y. Chen, A. Langer, et al.
Paradoxical use of invasive cardiac procedures for patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: an international perspective from the CRUSADE Initiative and the Canadian ACS Registries I and II.
Can J Cardiol, 23 (2007), pp. 1073-1079
[9]
I. Ferreira-Gonzalez, G. Permanyer-Miralda, M. Heras, J. Cunat, E. Civeira, F. Aros, et al.
Patterns of use and effectiveness of early invasive strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: an assessment by propensity score.
Am Heart J, 156 (2008), pp. 946-953
[10]
I. Ferreira-Gonzalez, G. Permanyer-Miralda, J. Marrugat, M. Heras, J. Cunat, E. Civeira, et al.
MASCARA (Manejo del Sindrome Coronario Agudo. Registro Actualizado) study. General findings.
Rev Esp Cardiol, 61 (2008), pp. 803-816
[11]
S. Jedrzkiewicz, S.G. Goodman, R.T. Yan, R.C. Welsh, J. Kornder, J.P. DeYoung, et al.
Temporal trends in the use of invasive cardiac procedures for non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes according to initial risk stratification.
Can J Cardiol, 25 (2009), pp. e370-e376
[12]
I. Ranasinghe, B. Alprandi-Costa, V. Chow, J.M. Elliott, J. Waites, J.T. Counsell, et al.
Risk stratification in the setting of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes 1999–2007.
[13]
A.T. Yan, R.T. Yan, M. Tan, A. Casanova, M. Labinaz, K. Sridhar, et al.
Risk scores for risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes: useful but simpler is not necessarily better.
Eur Heart J, 28 (2007), pp. 1072-1078
[14]
B. Elbarouni, S.G. Goodman, R.T. Yan, R.C. Welsh, J.M. Kornder, J.P. Deyoung, et al.
Validation of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Event (GRACE) risk score for in-hospital mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome in Canada.
Am Heart J, 158 (2009), pp. 392-399
[15]
F. Felices-Abad, J. Latour-Perez, M.P. Fuset-Cabanes, M. Ruano-Marco, J. Cunat-de la Hoz, F. del Nogal-Saez.
Indicadores de calidad en el sindrome coronario agudo para el analisis del proceso asistencial pre e intrahospitalario.
Med Intensiva, 34 (2010), pp. 397-417
[16]
M. Moscucci, K.A. Fox, C.P. Cannon, W. Klein, J. Lopez-Sendon, G. Montalescot, et al.
Predictors of major bleeding in acute coronary syndromes: the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE).
Eur Heart J, 24 (2003), pp. 1815-1823
[17]
A.J. Bagnall, S.G. Goodman, K.A. Fox, R.T. Yan, J.M. Gore, A.N. Cheema, et al.
Influence of age on use of cardiac catheterization and associated outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes.
Am J Cardiol, 103 (2009), pp. 1530-1536
[18]
K.F. Carruthers, O.H. Dabbous, M.D. Flather, I. Starkey, A. Jacob, D. Macleod, et al.
Contemporary management of acute coronary syndromes: does the practice match the evidence? The global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE).
Heart, 91 (2005), pp. 290-298
[19]
R. Calvo-Embuena, C. Gonzalez-Monte, J. Latour-Perez, J. Benitez-Parejo, V. Lacueva-Moya, M.J. Broch-Porcar, et al.
Gender bias in women with myocardial infarction: ten years after.
Med Intensiva, 32 (2008), pp. 329-336
[20]
M. O’Donoghue, W.E. Boden, E. Braunwald, C.P. Cannon, T.C. Clayton, R.J. de Winter, et al.
Early invasive vs conservative treatment strategies in women and men with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis.
JAMA, 300 (2008), pp. 71-80
[21]
M. Hamon, G. Coutance.
Transradial intervention for minimizing bleeding complications in percutaneous coronary intervention.
Am J Cardiol, 104 (2009), pp. 55C-59C
[22]
S.S. Jolly, S. Amlani, M. Hamon, S. Yusuf, S.R. Mehta.
Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Am Heart J, 157 (2009), pp. 132-140
[23]
S.V. Rao.
Strategies to reduce bleeding among patients with ischemic heart disease treated with antiplatelet therapies.
Am J Cardiol, 104 (2009), pp. 60C-63C
[24]
H.L. Dauerman, S.V. Rao, F.S. Resnic, R.J. Applegate.
Bleeding avoidance strategies consensus and controversy.
J Am Coll Cardiol, 58 (2011), pp. 1-10
[25]
P.G. Steg, K. Huber, F. Andreotti, H. Arnesen, D. Atar, L. Badimon, et al.
Bleeding in acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary interventions: position paper by the working group on thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology.
[26]
K. Szummer, P. Lundman, S.H. Jacobson, S. Schon, J. Lindback, U. Stenestrand, et al.
Influence of renal function on the effects of early revascularization in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: data from the Swedish web-system for enhancement and development of evidence-based care in heart disease evaluated according to recommended therapies (SWEDEHEART).
Circulation, 120 (2009), pp. 851-858
[27]
M. Roffi, E.J. Topol.
Percutaneous coronary intervention in diabetic patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes.
Eur Heart J, 25 (2004), pp. 190-198
[28]
P.F. Keller, D. Carballo, M. Roffi.
Diabetes and acute coronary syndrome.
Minerva Med, 101 (2010), pp. 81-104
[29]
A.P. Amin, S.P. Marso.
Acute coronary syndrome in the patient with diabetes: is the management different?.
Curr Cardiol Rep, 12 (2010), pp. 321-329
[30]
J.G. Diez, M. Cohen.
Balancing myocardial ischemic and bleeding risks in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
Am J Cardiol, 103 (2009), pp. 1396-1402

Please cite this article as: Latour-Pérez J, et al. Uso de la estrategia invasiva precoz en el síndrome coronario agudo sin elevación de ST. La paradoja continúa. Med Intensiva. 2012;36:95–102.

Group ARIAM members are in Annex 1 the end of the article.

Copyright © 2011. Elsevier España, S.L. and SEMICYUC
Idiomas
Medicina Intensiva (English Edition)
Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?