Browsing by Author "Milosevic, Aleksandra (56622640900)"

Objectives This study aimed to assess the clinical impact of immediate versus delayed invasive intervention in patients with non-ST-segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Background Previous studies found conflicting results on the effects of earlier invasive intervention in a heterogeneous population of acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. Methods We randomized 323 NSTEMI patients to an immediate-intervention group (<2 h after randomization, n = 162) and a delayed-intervention group (2 to 72 h, n = 161).The primary endpoint was the occurrence of death or new myocardial infarction (MI) at 30-day follow-up. Results Median time from randomization to angiography was 1.4 h and 61.0 h in the immediate-intervention group and the delayed-intervention group, respectively (p < 0.001). At 30 days, the primary endpoint was achieved less frequently in patients undergoing immediate intervention (4.3% vs. 13%, hazard ratio: 0.32, 95% confidence interval: 0.13 to 0.74; p = 0.008). At 1 year, this difference persisted (6.8% in the immediate-intervention group vs. 18.8% in delayed-intervention group; hazard ratio: 0.34, 95% confidence interval: 0.17 to 0.67; p = 0.002). The observed results were mainly attributable to the occurrence of new MI in the pre-catheterization period (0 deaths + 0 MIs in the immediate-intervention group vs. 1 death + 10 MIs in the delayed-intervention group). The rate of deaths, new MI, or recurrent ischemia was lower in the immediate-intervention group at both 30 days (6.8% vs. 26.7%; p < 0.001) and 1 year (15.4% vs. 33.1%; p < 0.001). Conclusions Immediate invasive strategy in NSTEMI patients is associated with lower rates of death or new MI compared with the delayed invasive strategy at early and midterm follow-up, mainly due to a decrease in the risk of new MI in the pre-catheterization period. (Immediate Versus Delayed Invasive Intervention for Non-STEMI Patients [RIDDLE-NSTEMI]; NCT02419833) © 2016 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Background A routine invasive strategy is recommended for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS). However, optimal timing of invasive strategy is less clearly defined. Individual clinical trials were underpowered to detect a mortality benefit; we therefore did a meta-analysis to assess the effect of timing on mortality. Methods We identified randomised controlled trials comparing an early versus a delayed invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. We included trials that reported all-cause mortality at least 30 days after in-hospital randomisation and for which the trial investigators agreed to collaborate (ie, providing individual patient data or standardised tabulated data). We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) using random-effects models. This meta-analysis is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42015018988). Findings We included eight trials (n=5324 patients) with a median follow-up of 180 days (IQR 180–360). Overall, there was no significant mortality reduction in the early invasive group compared with the delayed invasive group HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·64–1·03; p=0·0879). In pre-specified analyses of high-risk patients, we found lower mortality with an early invasive strategy in patients with elevated cardiac biomarkers at baseline (HR 0·761, 95% CI 0·581–0·996), diabetes (0·67, 0·45–0·99), a GRACE risk score more than 140 (0·70, 0·52–0·95), and aged 75 years older (0·65, 0·46–0·93), although tests for interaction were inconclusive. Interpretation An early invasive strategy does not reduce mortality compared with a delayed invasive strategy in all patients with NSTE-ACS. However, an early invasive strategy might reduce mortality in high-risk patients. Funding None. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd

Background: Non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) represents a heterogeneous patient population with varying risks of adverse outcomes. The RISK-PCI score, initially developed for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, was evaluated for its prognostic value in NSTEMI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: A retrospective observational study of 242 NSTEMI patients treated with PCI at the Clinical Center of Serbia from June 2011 to June 2016 was conducted. The RISK-PCI score, incorporating clinical, echocardiographic, and angiographic variables, was calculated for each patient. The primary outcome was 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes included individual components of MACE. Statistical analyses were performed to assess the predictive value of the RISK-PCI score. Results: The primary outcome of 30-day MACE occurred in 9.9% of patients. Independent predictors of 30-day MACE included age > 75 years, glucose ≥ 6.6 mmol/L, creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min, and post-procedural TIMI flow < 3. The RISK-PCI score demonstrated good discrimination for 30-day MACE (AUC = 0.725). Patients stratified into the very high-risk group (RISK-PCI score ≥ 7) had significantly higher risks of 30-day MACE (29.4%). Conclusions: The RISK-PCI score effectively stratifies NSTEMI patients by their risk of 30-day MACE, identifying a very high-risk subgroup that may benefit from closer monitoring and tailored interventions. External validation on larger cohorts is recommended to confirm these findings. © 2025 by the authors.

Background There is conflicting information about sex differences in presentation, treatment, and outcome after acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the era of reperfusion therapy and percutaneous coronary intervention. The aim of this study was to examine presentation, acute therapy, and outcomes of men and women with ACS with special emphasis on their relationship with younger age (≤ 65 years). Methods From January 2010 to June 2015, we enrolled 5140 patients from 3 primary PCI capable hospitals. Patients were registered according to the International Survey of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Transitional Countries (ISACS-TC) registry protocol (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01218776). The primary outcome was the incidence of in-hospital mortality. Results The study population was constituted by 2876 patients younger than 65 years and 2294 patients older. Women were older than men in both the young (56.2 ± 6.6 vs. 54.1 ± 7.4) and old (74.9 ± 6.4 vs. 73.6 ± 6.0) age groups. There were 3421 (66.2%) patients with ST elevation ACS (STE-ACS) and 1719 (33.8%) patients without ST elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). In STE-ACS, the percentage of patients who failed to receive reperfusion was higher in women than in men either in the young (21.7% vs. 15.8%) than in the elderly (35.2% vs. 29.6%). There was a significant higher mortality in women in the younger age group (age-adjusted OR 1.52, 95% CI: 1.01–2.29), but there was no sex difference in the older group (age-adjusted OR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.87–1.41). Significantly sex differences in mortality were not seen in NSTE-ACS patients. Conclusions In-hospital mortality from ACS is not different between older men and women. A higher short-term mortality can be seen only in women with STEMI and age of 65 or less. © 2016

Previous studies compared clinical outcomes of early versus delayed invasive strategy in patients with non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome up to 1-year follow-up, but long-term data remain scarce. Our aim was to evaluate the long-term effects of immediate invasive intervention in patients with Non–ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI). The Randomized Study of Immediate Versus Delayed Invasive Intervention in Patients With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (RIDDLE-NSTEMI) was a randomized, investigator-initiated, parallel-group trial that assigned 323 patients with NSTEMI (1:1) to either immediate (median time to intervention 1.4 hours) or delayed invasive strategy (61.0 hours). The primary end point was the composite of death or new myocardial infarction (MI). At 3 years, immediate invasive intervention was associated with a lower rate of death or new MI, compared with a delayed invasive strategy (12.3% vs 22.5%, hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.87, p = 0.014). The observed benefit of immediate intervention was mainly driven by an increased early reinfarction risk in delayed strategy, with similar new MI rates beyond 30 days (4.4% in the immediate and 5.6% in the delayed group, p = 0.61). Three-year mortality was 9.3% in the immediate invasive strategy, and 10.0% in the delayed strategy (p = 0.83). High baseline Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score (>140) was associated with a significant increase in long-term mortality, regardless of the timing of invasive intervention. In conclusion, whereas immediate invasive intervention significantly reduced the early risk of new MI, the timing of invasive intervention appears to have no significant impact on clinical outcomes beyond 30 days, which seem to mostly be related to the baseline clinical risk profile. © 2018 Elsevier Inc.

Background: Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results on the effects of early versus delayed invasive strategy in NSTE-ACS patients. Objectives: To perform up to date meta-analysis on the pooled data sample comparing early versus delayed invasive strategy, and to explore potential causes for the observed high statistical heterogeneity. Methods: MEDLINE via Pubmed, Central, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials Registry, Current controlled study and ClinicalTrials.gov registry and relevant conference proceedings were searched. RCTs were included that directly compared early versus delayed invasive strategy and reported rates of death, new myocardial infarction (MI) and/or recurrent ischemia. Results: 10 RCTs with 6089 patients were included. Time to coronary angiography varied from 0.5 to 24h in the early and from 20.5 to 86h in the delayed group. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in mortality (OR=0.83, 95%CI 0.64-1.08, P=0.16), and similar new MI rates (OR=1.02, 95%CI 0.63-1.64, P=0.94). The rate of recurrent ischemia was reduced in patients undergoing early coronary angiography (OR=0.56, 95%CI 0.40-0.79, P=0.001). Subgroup analysis indicated that the rate of new MI tended to depend on the study-specific endpoint definition (p for difference between subgroups 0.11), while a meta-regression revealed association of new MI rates with the within-study delay to coronary angiography (p=0.05). Conclusion: Early invasive strategy appears to reduce the occurrence of recurrent ischemia, but confers no mortality benefit. The true effect on the occurrence of new MI is obscured by the high between-study heterogeneity that stems mainly from non-uniform timing of early intervention and new MI definitions across the trials. © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd.