Am J Cardiol. 2023 Aug 26;205:369-378. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.07.178. Online ahead of print.
Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have traditionally been excluded from randomized trials. We aimed to compare percutaneous coronary intervention versus conservative management, and early intervention (EI; within 24 hours of admission) versus delayed intervention (DI; after 24 to 72 hours of admission) in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and concomitant CKD. An electronic literature search was performed to search for studies comparing invasive management to conservative management or EI versus DI in patients with NSTEMI with CKD. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI) or dialysis, major bleeding, and recurrent MI. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the primary outcome and odds ratios for secondary outcomes were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Eleven studies (140,544 patients) were analyzed. Invasive management was associated with lower mortality than conservative management (HR 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.67, p <0.001, I2 = 47%), with consistent benefit across all CKD stages, except CKD 5. There was no significant mortality difference between EI and DI, but subgroup analyses showed significant benefit for EI in stage 1 to 2 CKD (HR 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.97, p = 0.03, I2 = 0%), with no significant difference in stage 3 and 4 to 5 CKD. Invasive strategy was associated with higher odds of AKI or dialysis and major bleeding, but lower odds of recurrent MI compared with conservative management. In conclusion, in patients with NSTEMI and CKD, an invasive strategy is associated with significant mortality benefit over conservative management in most patients with CKD, but at the expense of higher risk of AKI and bleeding. EI appears to benefit those with early stages of CKD. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023405491.