Immediate Versus Delayed Invasive Intervention for Non-STEMI Patients : The RIDDLE-NSTEMI Study

ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the clinical impact of immediate versus delayed invasive intervention in patients with non–ST-segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).BackgroundPrevious studies found conflicting results on the effects of earlier invasive intervention in a heterogeneous population of acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation.MethodsWe randomized 323 NSTEMI patients to an immediate-intervention group (<2 h after randomization, n = 162) and a delayed-intervention group (2 to 72 h, n = 161).The primary endpoint was the occurrence of death or new myocardial infarction (MI) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsMedian time from randomization to angiography was 1.4 h and 61.0 h in the immediate-intervention group and the delayed-intervention group, respectively (p < 0.001). At 30 days, the primary endpoint was achieved less frequently in patients undergoing immediate intervention (4.3% vs. 13%, hazard ratio: 0.32, 95% confidence interval: 0.13 to 0.74; p = 0.008). At 1 year, this difference persisted (6.8% in the immediate-intervention group vs. 18.8% in delayed-intervention group; hazard ratio: 0.34, 95% confidence interval: 0.17 to 0.67; p = 0.002). The observed results were mainly attributable to the occurrence of new MI in the pre-catheterization period (0 deaths + 0 MIs in the immediate-intervention group vs. 1 death + 10 MIs in the delayed-intervention group). The rate of deaths, new MI, or recurrent ischemia was lower in the immediate-intervention group at both 30 days (6.8% vs. 26.7%; p < 0.001) and 1 year (15.4% vs. 33.1%; p < 0.001).ConclusionsImmediate invasive strategy in NSTEMI patients is associated with lower rates of death or new MI compared with the delayed invasive strategy at early and midterm follow-up, mainly due to a decrease in the risk of new MI in the pre-catheterization period. (Immediate Versus Delayed Invasive Intervention for Non-STEMI Patients [RIDDLE-NSTEMI]; NCT02419833)