OBJECTIVE:
The goal of the present study was to compare the prognoses of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes who were treated with invasive or conservative treatment strategies.
METHODS:
We performed a meta-analysis of studies of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes to assess the benefits of an invasive strategy vs. a conservative strategy for short- and long-term survival. We searched PubMed for studies published from 1990 to November 2012 that investigated the effects of an invasive vs. conservative strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. The following search terms were used: “non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction”, “unstable angina”, “acute coronary syndromes”, “invasive strategy”, and “conservative strategy”. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality at 30 days and 1 year.
RESULTS:
Seven published studies were included in the present meta-analysis. The pooled analyses show that an invasive strategy decreased the risk of death (risk ratio [0.839] [95% confidence interval {0.648-1.086}; I 2, 86.46%] compared to a conservative strategy over a 30-day-period. Furthermore, invasive treatment also decreased patient mortality (risk ratio [0.276] [95% confidence interval {0.259-0.294}; I 2, 94.58%]) compared to a conservative strategy for one year.
CONCLUSION:
In non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, an invasive strategy is comparable to a conservative strategy for decreasing short- and long-term mortality rates.
Non-ST-elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome; Invasive Strategy; Conservative Strategy; Meta-analysis; Mortality
