Cochrane · systematic review · CD004815
Routine invasive strategies versus selective invasive strategies for unstable angina and non‐ST elevation myocardial infarction in the stent era
Fanning, JP, Nyong, J, Scott, IA, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
HeartAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 28.6%Moderate 5 · 71.4%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Routine invasive strategies versus selective invasive strategies (conservative) for unstable angina and non‐ST elevation myocardial (UA/NSTEMI) infarction in the stent era
Population: participants with UA/NSTEMI in the stent era
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Death Routine invasive strategies vs selective invasive strategies (conservative) | RR 0.87 [0.64, 1.18] | 8 studies · 8915 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Myocardial infarction Routine invasive strategies vs selective invasive strategies (conservative) | RR 0.79 [0.63, 1] | 8 studies · 8915 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Death or non‐fatal Myocardial infarction Routine invasive strategies vs selective invasive strategies (conservative) | RR 0.93 [0.71, 1.2] | 7 studies · 7715 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Refractory angina Routine invasive strategies vs selective invasive strategies (conservative) | RR 0.64 [0.52, 0.79] | 5 studies · 8287 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Rehospitalisation Routine invasive strategies vs selective invasive strategies (conservative) | RR 0.77 [0.63, 0.94] | 6 studies · 6921 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Routine invasive strategies versus selective invasive strategies (conservative) for unstable angina and non‐ST elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) in the stent era
Population: participants with UA/NSTEMI in the stent era
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Complications of angiography or revascularization Bleeding Routine invasive strategies vs selective invasive strategies (conservative) | RR 1.73 [1.3, 2.31] | 6 studies · 7584 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Complications of angiography or revascularization Procedure‐related myocardial infarction Routine invasive strategies vs selective invasive strategies (conservative) | RR 1.87 [1.47, 2.37] | 5 studies · 6380 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |