Routine Primary PCI; Whether and When Necessary for the Management of NSTEMI—An Evidence Based Evaluation


Non ST elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) accounts for a significant portion of the hospitalizations due to acute coronary syndromes worldwide and is posing a huge challenge towards the health care cost globally. This signifies the need for proper triage and management stratification for the best utilization of the health care resources. Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) with early revascularization is a new emerging invasive technique and application of this technique is increasing tediously among the clinicians. However, the current body of evidences is divided between the efficacy, need and critical timing of PCI compared to conservative management in the treatment protocol for NSTEMI. A review of trials done comparing the early use of PCI versus conservative management indicates inconsistent finding with strong evidence towards early use of PCI in moderate to high-risk NSTEMI patients.

Share and Cite:

Hasan, I. , Rashid, T. and Bhuiyan, M. (2015) Routine Primary PCI; Whether and When Necessary for the Management of NSTEMI—An Evidence Based Evaluation. World Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases, 5, 343-350. doi: 10.4236/wjcd.2015.512040.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Antman, E., Bassand, J.-P., Klein, W., et al. (2000) Myocardial Infarction Redefined—A Consensus Document of the Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the Redefinition of Myocardial Infarction: The Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 36, 959-969.
[2] Apple, F.S., et al. (2007) National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and IFCC Committee for Standardization of Markers of Cardiac Damage Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines: Analytical Issues for Biomarkers of Heart Failure. Circulation, 116, e95-e98.
[3] Naghavi, M., et al. (2003) From Vulnerable Plaque to Vulnerable Patient a Call for New Definitions and Risk Assessment Strategies: Part I. Circulation, 108, 1664-1672.
[4] Sami, S. and Willerson, J.T. (2010) Contemporary Treatment of Unstable Angina and Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (Part 2). Texas Heart Institute Journal, 37, 262.
[5] Homoud, M.K. (2008) Coronary Artery Disease. Tufts-New England Medical Center, 1-13
[6] NSTEMI (2014)
[7] UpToDate (2014) Classification of Unstable Angina and Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
[8] Yusuf, S., Hawken, S., Ounpuu, S., et al. (2004) Effect of Potentially Modifiable Risk Factors Associated with Myocardial Infarction in 52 Countries (the INTERHEART Study): Case-Control Study. The Lancet, 364, 937-952.
[9] Libby, P. (2001) Current Concepts of the Pathogenesis of the Acute Coronary Syndromes. Circulation, 104, 365-372.
[10] Nakamura, M. (2010) Angiography Is the Gold Standard and Objective Evidence of Myocardial Ischemia Is Mandatory if Lesion Severity Is Questionable. - Indication of PCI for Angiographically Significant Coronary Artery Stenosis without Objective Evidence of Myocardial Ischemia (Pro)-. Circulation Journal: Official Journal of the Japanese Circulation Society, 75, 204-210; Discussion 217.
[11] Gray, H.H., Henderson, R.A., de Belder, M.A., Underwood, S.R. and Camm, A.J. (2010) Early Management of Unstable Angina and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Summary of NICE Guidance. Heart, 96, 1662-1668.
[12] Clinic, M. (2014) Coronary Angiogram.
[13] NHS (2014) Cardiac Catheterisation and Coronary Angi-ography—Risks.
[14] Lagerqvist, B., et al. (2006) 5-Year Outcomes in the FRISC-II Randomised Trial of an Invasive versus a Non-Invasive Strategy in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Follow-Up Study. The Lancet, 368, 998-1004.
[15] Spacek, R., et al. (2002) Value of First Day Angi-ography/Angioplasty in Evolving Non-ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Open Multicenter Randomized Trial. The VINO Study. European Heart Journal, 23, 230-238.
[16] Fox, K., et al. (2002) Interventional versus Conservative Treatment for Patients with Unstable Angina or Non-ST- Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The British Heart Foundation RITA 3 Randomised Trial. The Lancet, 360, 743-751.
[17] Neumann, F.-J., et al. (2003) Evaluation of Prolonged Antithrom-botic Pretreatment (Cooling-Off Strategy) before Intervention in Patients with Unstable Coronary Syndromes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA, 290, 1593-1599.
[18] Hirsch, A., et al. (2007) Long-Term Outcome after an Early Invasive versus Selective Invasive Treatment Strategy in Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome and Elevated Cardiac Troponin T (the ICTUS Trial): A Follow-Up Study. The Lancet, 369, 827-835.
[19] Mehta, S.R., et al. (2009) Early versus Delayed Invasive Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes. New England Journal of Medicine, 360, 2165-2175.
[20] Riezebos, R.K., et al. (2009) Immediate versus Deferred Coronary Angioplasty in Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes. Heart, 95, 807-812.
[21] Montalescot, G., et al. (2009) Immediate vs Delayed Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 302, 947-954.
[22] Braunwald, E., et al. (2000) ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarctiona Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina). Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 36, 970-1062.

Copyright © 2022 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.