We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Invasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre study. FRagmin and Fast Revascularisation during InStability in Coronary artery disease Investigators.
Lancet 1999 August 29
BACKGROUND: In unstable coronary-artery disease early invasive procedures are common, despite lack of evidence for the superiority of this approach. We compared an early invasive with a non-invasive treatment strategy in unstable coronary-artery disease.
METHODS: In a prospective randomised multicentre study, we randomly assigned 2457 patients in 58 Scandinavian hospitals (median age 66 years, 70% men) an early invasive or non-invasive treatment strategy with placebo-controlled long-term low-molecular-mass heparin (dalteparin) for 3 months. Coronary angiography was done within the first 7 days in 96% and 10%, and revascularisation within the first 10 days in 71% and 9% of patients in the invasive and non-invasive groups, respectively. We followed up patients for 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat.
FINDINGS: After 6 months there was a decrease in the composite endpoint of death or myocardial infarction of 9.4% in the invasive group, compared with 12.1% in the non-invasive group (risk ratio 0.78 [95% CI 0.62-0.98], p=0.031). There was a significant decrease in myocardial infarction alone (7.8 vs 10.1%, 0.77 [0.60-0.99]; p=0.045) and non-significantly lower mortality (1.9 vs 2.9%, 0.65 [0.39-1.09]; p=0.10). Symptoms of angina and re-admission were halved by the invasive strategy. Results were independent of the randomised dalteparin treatment. The greatest advantages were seen in high-risk patients.
INTERPRETATION: The early invasive approach should be the preferred strategy in most patients with unstable coronary-artery disease who have signs of ischaemia on electrocardiography or raised biochemical markers of myocardial damage.
METHODS: In a prospective randomised multicentre study, we randomly assigned 2457 patients in 58 Scandinavian hospitals (median age 66 years, 70% men) an early invasive or non-invasive treatment strategy with placebo-controlled long-term low-molecular-mass heparin (dalteparin) for 3 months. Coronary angiography was done within the first 7 days in 96% and 10%, and revascularisation within the first 10 days in 71% and 9% of patients in the invasive and non-invasive groups, respectively. We followed up patients for 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat.
FINDINGS: After 6 months there was a decrease in the composite endpoint of death or myocardial infarction of 9.4% in the invasive group, compared with 12.1% in the non-invasive group (risk ratio 0.78 [95% CI 0.62-0.98], p=0.031). There was a significant decrease in myocardial infarction alone (7.8 vs 10.1%, 0.77 [0.60-0.99]; p=0.045) and non-significantly lower mortality (1.9 vs 2.9%, 0.65 [0.39-1.09]; p=0.10). Symptoms of angina and re-admission were halved by the invasive strategy. Results were independent of the randomised dalteparin treatment. The greatest advantages were seen in high-risk patients.
INTERPRETATION: The early invasive approach should be the preferred strategy in most patients with unstable coronary-artery disease who have signs of ischaemia on electrocardiography or raised biochemical markers of myocardial damage.
Full text links
Trending Papers
Acute and non-acute decompensation of liver cirrhosis (47/130).Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver 2024 March 2
Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases: 2024 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Society for Microbiology (ASM).Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 March 6
Status epilepticus: what's new for the intensivist.Current Opinion in Critical Care 2024 Februrary 15
Administration of methylene blue in septic shock: pros and cons.Critical Care : the Official Journal of the Critical Care Forum 2024 Februrary 17
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app