Use of Invasive Strategy in Non–ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Is a Major Determinant of Improved Long-Term Survival

Objectives

This study sought to assess the impact of invasive strategy (IS) versus a conservative strategy (CS) on in-hospital complications and 3-year outcomes in patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) from the FAST-MI (French Registry of Acute Coronary Syndrome).

Background

Results from randomized trials comparing IS and CS in patients with NSTEMI are conflicting.

Methods

Of the 3,670 patients in FAST-MI, which included patients with acute myocardial infarction (within 48 h) over a 1-month period in France at the end of 2005, 1,645 presented with NSTEMI.

Results

Of the 1,645 patients analyzed, 80% had an IS. Patients in the IS group were younger (67 ± 12 years vs. 80 ± 11 years), less often women (29% vs. 51%), and had a lower GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) risk score (137 ± 36 vs. 178 ± 34) than patients treated with CS. In-hospital mortality and blood transfusions were significantly more frequent in patients with CS versus IS (13.1% vs. 2.0%, 9.1% vs. 4.6%). Use of IS was associated with a significant reduction in 3-year mortality and cardiovascular death (17% vs. 60%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35 to 0.55 and 8% vs. 36%, adjusted HR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.50). After propensity score matching (181 patients per group), 3-year survival was significantly higher in patients treated with IS.

Conclusions

In a real-world setting of patients admitted with NSTEMI, the use of IS during the initial hospital stay is an independent predictor of improved 3-year survival, regardless of age. (French Registry of Acute Coronary Syndrome [FAST-MI]; NCT00673036)