Comprehensive Evaluation of Time-Varied Outcomes for Invasive and Conservative Strategies in Patients with NSTE-ACS: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Yijing Zhao,Gaoxiang Ma,Yuanyuan Cai,Raphael N. Alolga,Pingxi Xiao,Lian‐Wen Qi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1197451
2022-01-01
Abstract:Background: Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing invasive and conservative strategies in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) are highly debatable. A comprehensive evaluation of the time-varied outcomes of the two strategies is therefore urgently needed.Methods: The RCTs for the invasive versus conservative treatment strategies were identified by searching PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials data for studies that had a minimum of a 30-day follow-up time were included. We categorized the follow-up time into six different periods: ≤ 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, and ≥ 10 years. The time-varied outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), death, myocardial infarction (MI), rehospitalization, cardiovascular death, bleeding, in-hospital death, and in-hospital bleeding. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Findings: We included 30 articles of 17 RCTs involving 12,331 participants in this meta-analysis. We found that invasive strategy did not provide appreciable benefit for NSTE-ACS in terms of MACE, death, and cardiovascular death at all time points of follow-up compared with conservative strategy. Although there was a risk reduction in MI within 6 months (RR 0·80, 95%CI 0·68-0·94) for invasive strategy, no significant differences were found in other periods between the two strategies. The invasive strategy did reduce rehospitalization within 6 months (0·69, 0·52-0·90), 1 year (0·73, 0·63-0·86) and 2 years (0·77, 0·60-1·00). Of note, increased risk was observed for invasive strategy in bleeding within 6 months (1·81, 1·13-2·88) and in-hospital bleeding (2·17, 1·52-3·10). In subgroup analyses, the invasive strategy decreased MACE risk for patients ≥ 65 years and showed benefit for men. In other subgroups stratified according to diabetes, ST-segment deviation and baseline troponin levels, no significant differences were observed between the two strategies.Interpretation: Compared with conservative strategy, the invasive strategy appears not to improve prognosis in most endpoints for patents with NSTE-ACS, especially in long-term outcomes.Registration Details: This meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021289579).Funding Information: This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (81930107 and 81825023). Declaration of Interests: We declare no competing interests.