OBJECTIVE:The goal of the present study was to compare the prognoses of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes who were treated with invasive or conservative treatment strategies.METHODS:We performed a meta-analysis of studies of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes to assess the benefits of an invasive strategy vs. a conservative strategy for short- and long-term survival. We searched PubMed for studies published from 1990 to November 2012 that investigated the effects of an invasive vs. conservative strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. The following search terms were used: “non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction”, “unstable angina”, “acute coronary syndromes”, “invasive strategy”, and “conservative strategy”. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality at 30 days and 1 year.RESULTS:Seven published studies were included in the present meta-analysis. The pooled analyses show that an invasive strategy decreased the risk of death (risk ratio [0.839] [95% confidence interval {0.648-1.086}; I2, 86.46%] compared to a conservative strategy over a 30-day-period. Furthermore, invasive treatment also decreased patient mortality (risk ratio [0.276] [95% confidence interval {0.259-0.294}; I2, 94.58%]) compared to a conservative strategy for one year.CONCLUSION:In non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, an invasive strategy is comparable to a conservative strategy for decreasing short- and long-term mortality rates.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis after restoration of spontaneous circulation in cardiac arrest patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction using meta-analysis. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of clinical studies indexed in the PUBMED, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and published between January 1995 and October 2012. In addition, we compared the hospital discharge and neurological recovery rates between the patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention and those who received thrombolysis. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies evaluating the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis after restoration of spontaneous circulation in cardiac arrest patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were included. Seventeen of the 24 studies were used in this meta-analysis. All studies were used to compare percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis. The meta-analysis showed that the rate of hospital discharge improved with both percutaneous coronary intervention (p<0.001) and thrombolysis (p<0.001). We also found that cardiac arrest patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction who received thrombolysis after restoration of spontaneous circulation did not have decreased hospital discharge (p = 0.543) or neurological recovery rates (p = 0.165) compared with those who received percutaneous coronary intervention. CONCLUSION: In cardiac arrest patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction who achieved restoration of spontaneous circulation, both percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis improved the hospital discharge rate. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the hospital discharge and neurological recovery rates between the percutaneous coronary intervention-treated group and the thrombolysis-treated group.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have shown that circulating microRNAs might be useful, novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. The aims of this study were to evaluate the expression of cardiac-specific miRNAs (miR-1, -133a, -208b, and -499) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and to compare the diagnostic values of these miRNAs with that of cardiac troponin T. METHODS: Sixty-seven plasma samples obtained from patients with acute myocardial infarction and 32 plasma specimens collected from healthy volunteers were analyzed in this study. The levels of cardiac-specific miRNAs (miR-1, -133a, -208b, and -499) were measured by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, and the concentrations of plasma cardiac troponin T were measured using electrochemiluminescence-based methods and an Elecsys 2010 Immunoassay Analyzer. RESULTS: The levels of plasma miR-1, -133a, -208b, and -499 were significantly higher in acute myocardial infarction patients (all p<0.001) than in healthy volunteers. The expression of the cardiac-specific miRNAs in acute myocardial infarction patients decreased to close to the baseline levels at the time of hospital discharge (all p>0.05). There were no correlations between the levels of the four circulating miRNAs and the clinical characteristics of the study population (all p>0.05). Furthermore, receiver operating characteristic curve analyses showed that the four plasma miRNAs were not superior to cardiac troponin T for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (all p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that circulating miR-1, -133a, -208b, and -499 may be useful biomarkers in acute myocardial infarction patients but that these miRNAs are not superior to cardiac troponin T for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction.