Evidence Hub

Early Invasive Strategy in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome With Congestive Heart Failure ― A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ―

Kiyotaka Hao, Takuya Taniguchi, S. Kojima, Marina Arai, Rie Aoyama, Kazuya Tateishi, Yuichiro Minami, Masashi Yokose et al.

Circulation Reports, 2025

310 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background Congestive heart failure (CHF) is associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS); however, the optimal timing of invasive intervention in NSTE-ACS with CHF remains unclear. In this study, we assessed the impact of early vs. delayed invasive strategies on mortality and cardiac events by synthesizing a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of patients with NSTE-ACS. Methods and Results We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trials comparing early and delayed invasive strategies in patients with NSTE-ACS and CHF, published before February 2023. Observational studies were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years. Two eligible studies, including 310 participants, were identified. The primary endpoint occurred in 40 (24.5%) of 163 patients in the early invasive strategy group, compared with 39 (26.5%) of 147 patients in the delayed invasive strategy group, and the effect of an early invasive strategy on the primary outcome was uncertain (risk ratio 0.95 [95% confidence interval 0.66–1.37]). The certainty of the evidence was rated very low. Conclusions The effects of an early invasive strategy in patients with NSTE-ACS and CHF remains uncertain, with no clear reduction in composite outcome of mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years compared with delayed intervention.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 310 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free