0
Letters |

Routine vs Selective Invasive Strategies in Acute Coronary Syndromes—ReplyRoutine vs Selective Invasive Strategies in Acute Coronary Syndromes—Reply

JAMA. 2005;294(22):2844-2846. doi:10.1001/jama.294.22.2845-b
Text Size: A A A
Published online

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Letters Section Editor: Robert M. Golub, MD, Senior Editor.

ROUTINE VS SELECTIVE INVASIVE STRATEGIES IN ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROMES—REPLY

In Reply: The meta-analysis by Drs Bavry and Kumbhani1 using selective inclusion of trials of invasive vs conservative therapy performed after 1999 is consistent with the overall results of our meta-analysis, which includes the totality of data from all of the randomized trials addressing this question. Figure 5 of our article reports a subgroup analysis of trials performed after 1999 and shows consistent benefit of the invasive strategy in these latter trials. However, the analysis by Bavry and Kumbhani did not show a mortality benefit at 12 months and included a trial that allocated patients to management strategy according to day of the week, potentially producing a biased result in favor of invasive therapy.2 Second, randomized trials evaluating the use of stents have not found stent use to reduce mortality or MI.3 Third, the overwhelming majority of patients in the recent trials did not actually use Gp IIb/IIIIa inhibitors: only 10% in FRISC II,4 less than 5.2% in RITA 3,5 and 0% in VINO.6

It is therefore not clear that the benefits of an invasive strategy were due to the use of these agents and stents. The only trial to use Gp IIb/IIIa antagonists in the majority of individuals was TACTICS-TIMI-18,7 in which there was no impact on mortality at follow-up. By contrast, the only trial to show a mortality benefit with invasive therapy was the FRISC II trial,3 in which Gp IIb/IIIa antagonists were not used routinely. In the most recent large-scale trial, ICTUS, nearly all patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention received a Gp IIb/IIIa antagonist and a stent, but there was no impact on mortality.8

With regard to the small early mortality hazard, in the TACTICS trial there was a 2-fold increase in the point estimate for mortality in the invasive group at hospital discharge, despite the use of intravenous Gp IIb/IIIa antagonists. Thus, the important issue should not be whether an early hazard exists but rather how to optimize the benefits of an invasive strategy and minimize its risks.

Regarding Dr Carbajal's concern about the lack of blinding in these trials, it would have been impossible to blind patients and physicians to an invasive or conservative management strategy. The key is to have unbiased assessment of outcomes, including a focus on objective end points (such as death or MI), and to have blinded assessment of outcome events by a central adjudication committee, which was performed in all of the trials included in our meta-analysis. Second, all the trials included in our meta-analysis had concealed randomization (a requirement for trial inclusion) as well as a properly performed intention-to-treat analysis, both of which were confirmed by the trial principal investigators in their reports and in personal communications.

Financial Disclosures: None reported.

References
Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Quiroz R, Ramchandani SR, Kenchaiah S, Antman EM. Invasive therapy along with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and intracoronary stents improves survival in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis and review of the literature.  Am J Cardiol. 2004;93830-835
PubMed
Michalis LK, Stroumbis CS, Pappas K.  et al.  Treatment of refractory unstable angina in geographically isolated areas without cardiac surgery: invasive versus conservative strategy (TRUCS study).  Eur Heart J. 2000;211954-1959
PubMed
Al Suwaidi J, Holmes DR Jr, Salam AM, Lennon R, Berger PB. Impact of coronary artery stents on mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction: meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing a strategy of routine stenting with that of balloon angioplasty.  Am Heart J. 2004;147815-822
PubMed
Wallentin L, Lagerqvist B, Husted S, Kontny F, Stahle E, Swahn E. Outcome at 1 year after an invasive compared with a non-invasive strategy in unstable coronary-artery disease: the FRISC II invasive randomised trial.  Lancet. 2000;3569-16
PubMed
Fox KA, Poole-Wilson PA, Henderson RA.  et al. Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable Angina Investigators.  Interventional versus conservative treatment for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial.  Lancet. 2002;360743-751
PubMed
Spacek R, Widimsky P, Straka Z.  et al.  Value of first day angiography/angioplasty in evolving non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: an open multicenter randomized trial: the VINO Study.  Eur Heart J. 2002;23230-238
PubMed
Cannon CP, Weintraub WS, Demopoulos LA.  et al. TACTICS (Treat Angina with Aggrastat and Determine Cost of Therapy with an Invasive or Conservative Strategy)–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 18 Investigators.  Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban.  N Engl J Med. 2001;3441879-1887
PubMed
de Winter RJ.ICTUS Investigators.  ICTUS: Invasive versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable coronary Syndromes. Presented at: European Society of Cardiology Congress; August 29, 2004; Munich, Germany

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Quiroz R, Ramchandani SR, Kenchaiah S, Antman EM. Invasive therapy along with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and intracoronary stents improves survival in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis and review of the literature.  Am J Cardiol. 2004;93830-835
PubMed
Michalis LK, Stroumbis CS, Pappas K.  et al.  Treatment of refractory unstable angina in geographically isolated areas without cardiac surgery: invasive versus conservative strategy (TRUCS study).  Eur Heart J. 2000;211954-1959
PubMed
Al Suwaidi J, Holmes DR Jr, Salam AM, Lennon R, Berger PB. Impact of coronary artery stents on mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction: meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing a strategy of routine stenting with that of balloon angioplasty.  Am Heart J. 2004;147815-822
PubMed
Wallentin L, Lagerqvist B, Husted S, Kontny F, Stahle E, Swahn E. Outcome at 1 year after an invasive compared with a non-invasive strategy in unstable coronary-artery disease: the FRISC II invasive randomised trial.  Lancet. 2000;3569-16
PubMed
Fox KA, Poole-Wilson PA, Henderson RA.  et al. Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable Angina Investigators.  Interventional versus conservative treatment for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial.  Lancet. 2002;360743-751
PubMed
Spacek R, Widimsky P, Straka Z.  et al.  Value of first day angiography/angioplasty in evolving non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: an open multicenter randomized trial: the VINO Study.  Eur Heart J. 2002;23230-238
PubMed
Cannon CP, Weintraub WS, Demopoulos LA.  et al. TACTICS (Treat Angina with Aggrastat and Determine Cost of Therapy with an Invasive or Conservative Strategy)–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 18 Investigators.  Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban.  N Engl J Med. 2001;3441879-1887
PubMed
de Winter RJ.ICTUS Investigators.  ICTUS: Invasive versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable coronary Syndromes. Presented at: European Society of Cardiology Congress; August 29, 2004; Munich, Germany
CME Course for:


You need to register in order to view this quiz.


To understand the clinical management of acute heart failure syndromes.
Accreditation Information The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
To view and print your certificate and access a summary of your CME courses go to My CME.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s “Cited By” API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Response

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.