Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Systematic review with meta analysis
Routine invasive strategies compared with conservative strategies do not lower the all-cause mortality in patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and unstable angina
  1. Udho Thadani
  1. Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Section, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Udho Thadani, Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Section, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 800 Stanton Young Blvd, COM 5400, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104, USA; Udho-Thadani{at}ouhsc.edu

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Commentary on: Fanning JP, Nyong J, Scott IA, et al. Routine invasive strategies versus selective invasive strategies for unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in the stent era. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016:CD004815.

Context

Urgent coronary artery revascularisation with stents following an acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI) reduces mortality and the incidence of reinfarction. Current guidelines recommend the use of routine invasive strategies (RINVS) in patients with an acute non-ST elevation (NSTE) MI and in those with unstable angina (UA) with high-risk features. However, these guidelines are not necessarily evidence-based, and concern remains whether the RINVS is indeed superior to a selective invasive strategy (SINVS). This review and meta-analysis compares the benefits and harms associated with RINVS, in the stent era, with or without the use of glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists, with SINVS in patients with …

View Full Text

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.