Ability of minor elevations of troponins I and T to predict benefit from an early invasive strategy in patients with unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: results from a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Cardiac troponins I (cTnI) and T (cTnT) are useful for assessing prognosis in patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI). However, the use of cardiac troponins for predicting benefit of an invasive vs conservative strategy in this patient population is not clear. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively test whether an early invasive strategy provides greater benefit than a conservative strategy in acute coronary syndrome patients with elevated baseline troponin levels. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized trial conducted from December 1997 to June 2000. SETTING: One hundred sixty-nine community and tertiary care hospitals in 9 countries. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2220 patients with acute coronary syndrome were enrolled. Baseline troponin level data were available for analysis in 1821, and 1780 completed the 6-month follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive (1) an early invasive strategy of coronary angiography between 4 and 48 hours after randomization and revascularization when feasible based on coronary anatomy (n = 1114) or (2) a conservative strategy of medical treatment and, if stable, predischarge exercise tolerance testing (n = 1106). Conservative strategy patients underwent coronary angiography and revascularization only if they manifested recurrent ischemia at rest or on provocative testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Composite end point of death, MI, or rehospitalization for acute coronary syndrome at 6 months. RESULTS: Patients with a cTnI level of 0.1 ng/mL or more (n = 1087) experienced a significant reduction in the primary end point with the invasive vs conservative strategy (15.3% vs 25.0%; odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.73). Patients with cTnI levels of less than 0.1 ng/mL had no detectable benefit from early invasive management (16.0% vs 12.4%; OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.89-2.05; P<.001 for interaction). The benefit of invasive vs conservative management through 30 days was evident even among patients with low-level (0.1-0.4 ng/mL) cTnI elevation (4.4% vs 16.5%; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.69). Directionally similar results were observed with cTnT. CONCLUSION: In patients with clinically documented acute coronary syndrome who are treated with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, even small elevations in cTnI and cTnT identify high-risk patients who derive a large clinical benefit from an early invasive strategy.

Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban.

BACKGROUND: There is continued debate as to whether a routine, early invasive strategy is superior to a conservative strategy for the management of unstable angina and myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation. METHODS: We enrolled 2220 patients with unstable angina and myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation who had electrocardiographic evidence of changes in the ST segment or T wave, elevated levels of cardiac markers, a history of coronary artery disease, or all three findings. All patients were treated with aspirin, heparin, and the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. They were randomly assigned to an early invasive strategy, which included routine catheterization within 4 to 48 hours and revascularization as appropriate, or to a more conservative (selectively invasive) strategy, in which catheterization was performed only if the patient had objective evidence of recurrent ischemia or an abnormal stress test. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome at six months. RESULTS: At six months, the rate of the primary end point was 15.9 percent with use of the early invasive strategy and 19.4 percent with use of the conservative strategy (odds ratio, 0.78; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.97; P=0.025). The rate of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at six months was similarly reduced (7.3 percent vs. 9.5 percent; odds ratio, 0.74; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.54 to 1.00; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unstable angina and myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation who were treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban, the use of an early invasive strategy significantly reduced the incidence of major cardiac events. These data support a policy involving broader use of the early inhibition of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in combination with an early invasive strategy in such patients.

Comparison of two platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, tirofiban and abciximab, for the prevention of ischemic events with percutaneous coronary revascularization.

BACKGROUND: In the setting of percutaneous coronary revascularization, agents in the class known as platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have significantly reduced the incidence of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days. We assessed whether there are differences in safety or efficacy between two such inhibitors, tirofiban and abciximab. METHODS: Using a double-blind, double-dummy design at 149 hospitals in 18 countries, we randomly assigned patients to receive either tirofiban or abciximab before undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization with the intent to perform stenting. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent target-vessel revascularization at 30 days. The trial was designed and statistically powered to demonstrate the noninferiority of tirofiban as compared with abciximab. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred more frequently among the 2398 patients in the tirofiban group than among the 2411 patients in the abciximab group (7.6 percent vs. 6.0 percent; hazard ratio, 1.26; one-sided 95 percent confidence interval of 1.51, demonstrating lack of equivalence, and two-sided 95 percent confidence interval of 1.01 to 1.57, demonstrating the superiority of abciximab over tirofiban; P=0.038). The magnitude and the direction of the effect were similar for each component of the composite end point (hazard ratio for death, 1.21; hazard ratio for myocardial infarction, 1.27; and hazard ratio for urgent target-vessel revascularization, 1.26), and the difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction between the tirofiban group and the abciximab group was significant (6.9 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively; P=0.04). The relative benefit of abciximab was consistent regardless of age, sex, the presence or absence of diabetes, or the presence or absence of pretreatment with clopidogrel. There were no significant differences in the rates of major bleeding complications or transfusions, but tirofiban was associated with a lower rate of minor bleeding episodes and thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSIONS: Although the trial was intended to assess the noninferiority of tirofiban as compared with abciximab, the findings demonstrated that tirofiban offered less protection from major ischemic events than did abciximab.

Safety of cardiac angiography with conventional ionic contrast agents. The Philadelphia Area Contrast Agent Study.

To characterize the frequency of adverse reactions to conventional ionic contrast agents, data describing the frequency of such reactions were gathered from 4,630 diagnostic cardiac angiographic procedures. The patient population had a large prevalence of severe or unstable cardiac disease (56% had New York Heart Association class III, IV or V, 12.6% had left ventricular end-diastolic pressure greater than 25 mm Hg and 34% had 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease). The overall minor adverse reaction rate was 14.2%. Major adverse reactions (requiring treatment) occurred in 61 (1.3%) of procedures. All adverse reactions were managed successfully and there were no deaths. Adverse reactions were more frequent in patients with higher New York Heart Association classes and with elevated left ventricular end-diastolic pressure. The adverse reaction rate was not increased in patients with more extensive coronary artery disease, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or reduced cardiac index. The overall adverse reaction rate was probably influenced by physician behavior. Smaller volumes of contrast agent were administered to patients with more severe cardiac disease. Six percent of procedures were abbreviated either because of an adverse reaction or of concern that a reaction might occur if the procedure were continued. As a result, the diagnostic data obtained were judged to be inadequate in 0.8% of procedures. These data demonstrate that appropriate operator caution within the highly monitored environment of the cardiac catheterization laboratory allows cardiac angiography to be performed safely with conventional ionic contrast agents in most patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)