American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 95–116 | Cite as

Evidence-Based Medical Therapy of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

Review Article


Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) present a major health challenge in modern medicine. With new clinical trials being conducted, our knowledge of latest therapies for ACS continually evolves. In this article, we review currently available medical therapies and provide evidence-based rationale for current pharmacologic therapies. Among the antiplatelet therapies, aspirin, clopidogrel, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors demonstrate significant efficacy in reducing morbidity and mortality. Among the anticoagulants, unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparin, particularly enoxaparin sodium, remain the hallmarks of therapy against which newer anticoagulants are often compared. Bivalirudin has recently showed significant efficacy in decreasing cardiovascular events and mortality, but with potentially less risk of bleeding than heparin. Results of trials evaluating warfarin remain inconsistent regarding potential benefits. Finally, fondaparinux sodium, recently tested, shows promise as a powerful yet safe anticoagulant. Fibrinolysis is an acceptable modality for reperfusion if facilities equipped for primary percutaneous revascularization are not available. Regarding anti-ischemic therapy, β-adrenoceptor antagonists and nitrates remain critical in the early management of ACS. Inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system have also shown significant reductions in the morbidity and mortality of patients presenting with ACS, particularly in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and clinical heart failure, with ACE inhibitors being first-line agents and angiotensin receptor antagonists being a reasonable substitute if ACE inhibitors are not tolerated. Among the lipid-lowering therapies, statins (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors) have been documented as being the most well tolerated and most efficacious therapies for ACS patients and data exist that they should be administered early in ACS management. Studies evaluating combination therapy (antiplatelet drugs, β-adrenoceptor antagonists, ACE inhibitors, and lipid-lowering agents) show a clear benefit in mortality in patients with known coronary artery disease. Efforts to improve these key evidence-based medical therapies are numerous and include such programs as the American College of Cardiology’s Guidelines Applied in Practice, international patient registries such as the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events, and studies such as CRUSADE. Finally, patients with diabetes mellitus pose a challenge to clinicians both in terms of their glycemic control and in their apparent relative resistance to antiplatelet therapy. Studies involving ACS patients suggest that stringent glycemic control may result in benefits in both morbidity and mortality.



No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.


  1. 1.
    MØdet den 26de Marts. Ugeskr Loeg 1844; 10: 214–8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams R, Friday G, Furie K, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics: 2006 update. A report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Committee: American Heart Association. Dallas, Texas. Circulation 2006; 113: 85–151.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Majerus PW, Tollefsen DM. Anticoagulant, thrombolytic, and antiplatelet drugs. In: Hardman JG, Limbird LE, editors. 10th ed. Goodman and Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001: 1534.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Randomized factorial trial of high-dose intravenous streptokinase, or oral aspirin and of intravenous heparin in acute myocardial infarction. ISIS (International Studies of Infarct Survival) pilot study. Eur Heart J 1987; 8: 634–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomized trial of IV streptokinase group, oral aspirin both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Lancet 1988; 2: 349–60.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yusuf S, Zhao F, Mehta SR, et al., for the Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events Trial Investigators. Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 494–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen ZM, Jiang LX, Chen YP, et al. Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin in 45,852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 1607–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meijer A, Verheugt FW, Werter CJ, et al. Aspirin versus coumadin in the prevention of reocclusion and recurrent ischemia after successful thrombolysis: a prospective placebo-controlled angiographic study. Results of the APRICOT Study. Circulation 1993; 87: 1524–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sabatine MS, Cannon CP, Gibson CM, et al., for the CLARITY-TIMI 28 Investigators. Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin and fibrinolytic therapy for myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1179–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Use of a monoclonal antibody directed against the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor in high-risk coronary angioplasty: the EPIC Investigation. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 956–61.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Randomised placebo-controlled trial of abciximab before and during coronary intervention in refractory unstable angina: the CAPTURE study. Lancet 1997; 349: 1429–35.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blockade and low-dose heparin during percutaneous coronary revascularization: the EPILOG Investigators. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1689–96.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Randomised placebo-controlled and balloon-angioplasty-controlled trial to assess safety of coronary stenting with use of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade: the EPISTENT Investigators. Evaluation of platelet IIb/IIIa inhibitor for stenting. Lancet 1998; 352: 87–92.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kong DF, Califf RM, Miller DP, et al. Clinical outcomes of therapeutic agents block the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa integrin in ischemic heart disease. Circulation 1998; 98: 2829–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ronner E, Dykun Y, van den Brand MJ, et al. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists: an asset for treatment of unstable coronary syndromes and coronary intervention. Eur Heart J 1998; 19: 1608–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boersma E, Harrington RA, Moliterno DJ, et al. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of all major randomized clinical trials. Lancet 2002; 359: 189–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hirsh J, Raschke R, Warkentin TE, et al. Heparin: mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, dosing considerations, monitoring, efficacy, and safety. Chest 1995; 108: 258–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oler A, Whooley MA, Oler J, et al. Adding heparin to aspirin reduces the incidence of myocardial infarction and death in patients with unstable angina: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1996; 276: 811–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mishell JM, Waters DD. Diagnosis and management of patients with unstable angina. In: O’Rourke RA, Fuster V, Alexander RW, et al., editors. Hurst’s the heart: manual of cardiology. 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001: 257–76.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gurfinkel EP, Manos EJ, Mejail RI, et al. Low molecular weight heparin versus regular heparin or aspirin in the treatment of unstable angina and silent ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 26: 313–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Low-molecular-weight-heparin during instability in coronary artery disease, Fragmin during Instability in Coronary Artery Disease (FRISC) Study Group. Lancet 1996; 347: 561–8.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klein W, Buchwald A, Hillis S, et al. Comparison of low molecular weight heparin with unfractionated heparin acutely and with placebo for 6 weeks in the management of unstable coronary artery disease: Fragmin in Unstable Coronary Artery Disease Study (FRIC). Circulation 1997; 96: 61–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    The FRAXIS Study Group. Comparison of two treatment durations (6 days and 14 days) of a low molecular weight heparin with a 6-day treatment of unfractionated heparin in the initial management of unstable angina or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction: FRAXIS (FRAXiparine in Ischaemic Syndrome). Eur Heart J 1999; 20: 1553–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cohen M, Demers C, Gurfinkel E, et al., for the ESSENCE Study Group. A comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for unstable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 447–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goodman SG, Bozovich GE, Tan M, et al. The greatest benefit of enoxaparin over unfractionated heparin in acute coronary syndromes is achieved in patients presenting with ST-segment changes: the Enoxaparin in Non-Q-Wave Coronary Events (ESSENCE) Electrocardiogram Core Laboratory Substudy. Am Heart J 2006; 151:791–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Antman EM, McCabe CH, Gurfinkel EP, et al. Enoxaparin prevents death and cardiac ischemia events in unstable angina/non-Q-wave myocardial infarction: results of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) IIB trial. Circulation 1999; 100: 1593–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Blazing MA, de Lemos JA, White HD, et al. Safety and efficacy of enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes who receive tirofiban and aspirin: a randomized controlled trial [published erratum appears in JAMA 2004; 292: 1178]. JAMA 2004; 292: 55–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ferguson JJ, Califf RM, Antman EM, et al. Enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes managed with an intended early invasive strategy: primary results of the SYNERGY randomized trial. JAMA 2004; 292: 45–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Petersen JL, Mahaffey KW, Hasselblad V, et al. Efficacy and bleeding complications among patients randomized to enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin for antithrombin therapy in non-ST-Segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic overview. JAMA 2004; 292: 89–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fenton IJW. Thrombin functions and antithrombotic intervention. Thromb Haemost 1995; 74: 493–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fenton II JW, Ofosu FA, Brezniak DV, et al. Thrombin and antithrombotics. Semin Thromb Hemost 1998; 24: 87–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bittl JA, Strony J, Brinker JA, et al. Treatment with bivalirudin (Hirulog) as compared with heparin during coronary angioplasty for unstable or postinfarction angina. Hirulog Angioplasty Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 764–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carswell CI, Plosker GL. Bivalirudin: a review of its potential place in the management of acute coronary syndromes. Drugs 2002; 62: 841–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    White HD, Aylward P, Frey MJ. Randomized, double-blind comparison of hirulog versus heparin in patients receiving streptokinase and aspirin for acute myocardial infarction (HERO). Hirulog Early Reperfusion/Occlusion (HERO) Trial Investigators. Circulation 1997; 96: 2155–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    White HD, On behalf of the Hirulog and Early Reperfusion or Occlusion (HERO-2) Trial Investigators. Thrombin-specific anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin in patients receiving fibrinolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: the HERO-2 randomised trial. Lancet 2001; 358: 1855–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lincoff AM, Bittl JA, Harrington RA, et al. Bivalirudin and provisional glycoprotein iib/iiia blockade compared with heparin and planned glycoprotein iib/iiia blockade during percutaneous coronary intervention: REPLACE-2 randomized trial. JAMA 2003; 289: 853–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gibson CM, Morrow DA, Murphy SA, et al., for the TIMI Study Group. A randomized trial to evaluate the relative protection against post-percutaneous coronary intervention microvascular dysfunction, ischemia, and inflammation among antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents: the PROTECT-TIMI-30 trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47: 2364–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stone GW, McLaurin BT, Cox DA, et al., for the ACUITY investigators. Bivalirudin for patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Eng J Med 2006; 355: 2203–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Effects of long-term, moderate-intensity oral anticoagulation in addition to aspirin in unstable angina: the Organization to Assess Strategies for Ischemic Syndromes (OASIS) Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 475–84.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Anand SS, Yusuf S, Pogue J, et al. Long-term oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with unstable angina or suspected non-Q-wave myocardial infarction: organization to assess strategies for ischemic syndromes (OASIS) pilot study results. Circulation 1998; 98: 1064–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cohen M, Adams PC, Parry G, et al. Combination antithrombotic therapy in unstable rest angina and non-Q-wave infarction in nonprior aspirin users: primary end points analysis from the ATACS trial. Antithrombotic Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndromes Research Group. Circulation 1994; 89: 81–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rothberg MB, Celestin C, Fiore LD, et al. Warfarin plus aspirin after myocardial infarction or the acute coronary syndrome: meta-analysis with estimates of risk and benefit. Ann Int Med. 2005; 143: 241–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemie Syndromes Investigators. Comparison of fondaparinux and enoxaparin in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2006; 351: 1464–76.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    A clinical trial comparing primary coronary angioplasty with tissue plasminogen activator for acute myocardial infarction: the Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO IIb) Angioplasty Substudy Investigators. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1621–8.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomized trails. Lancet 2003; 361: 13–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Eagle KA, Goodman SG, Avezum A, et al., for the GRACE investigators. Practice variation and missed opportunities for reperfusion in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). Lancet 2002; 359: 373–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    The GRACE investigators. Rationale and design of the GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) Project: a multinational registry of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J 2001; 141(2): 190–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rogers JR, Canto JG, Lambrew CT, et al. Temporal trends in the treatment of over 1.5 million patients with myocardial infarction in the US from 1990 through 1999. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 2056–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina). J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 40: 1366–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mechanisms for the early mortality reduction produced by beta-blockade started early in acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-1 (First International Study of Infarct Survival Collaborative Group). Lancet 1988; 1: 921–3.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Timolol-induced reduction in mortality and reinfarction in patients surviving acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1981; 304: 801–7.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hjalmarson A, Elmfeldt D, Herlitz J, et al. Effect on mortality of metoprolol in acute myocardial infarction: a double-blind randomized trial. Lancet 1981; 2: 823–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yusuf S, Sleight P, Rossi PRF, et al. Reduction in infarct size, arrhythmias and chest pain by early intravenous beta blockade in suspected acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1983; 67(6 Pt 2): 132–41.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Metoprolol in acute myocardial infarction (MIAMI): a randomized placebo-controlled international trial. The MIAMI Trial Research Group. Eur Heart Journal 1985; 6: 199–226.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Chen ZM, Pan HC, Chen YP, et al. Early intravenous then oral metoprolol in 45,852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomized placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 1622–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rude RE, Muller JE, Braunwald E. Efforts to limit the size of myocardial infarcts. Ann Intern Med 1981; 95: 736–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yusuf S, Collins R, MacMahon S, et al. Effect of intravenous nitrates on mortality in acute myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 1988; 1: 1088–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Swedberg K, Held P, Kjekshus J, et al. Effects of the early administration of enalapril on mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction: results of the Cooperative New Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study II (CONSENSUS II). N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 678–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    GISSI-3: effects of lisinopril and transdermal glyceryl trinitrate singly and together on 6-week mortality and ventricular function after acute myocardial infarction. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’infarto Miocardico. Lancet 1994; 343: 1115–22.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    ISIS-4: a randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58,050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. ISIS-4 (Fourth International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Lancet 1995; 345: 669–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Urata H, Healy B, Stewart RW, et al. Angiotensin II-forming pathways in normal and failing human hearts. Circ Res 1990; 66: 883–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mann DL, Deswal A. Angiotensin-receptor blockade in acute myocardial infarction: a matter of dose. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1963–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dickstein K, Kjekshus J, for the OPTIMAAL study group. Effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients after acute myocardial infarction: the OPTIMAAL randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 360: 752–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Pfeffer MA, McMurray JJV, Velazquez EJ, et al., for the VALIANT trial investigators. Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1893–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pitt B, Remme W, Zannad F, et al. Eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 1309–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4,444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994; 344: 1383–9.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sacks RM, Pfeffer MA, Moye LA, et al. The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1001–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 360: 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels: the Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study Group. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1349–57.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Saab FA, Eagle KA, Kline-Rogers E, et al., On behalf of the Michigan Cardiovascular Outcomes Research and Reporting Program of the University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center. Comparison of outcomes in acute coronary syndrome in patients receiving statins within 24 hours of onset versus at later times. Am J Cardiol 2004; 94: 1166–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Schwartz GG, Olsson AG, Ezekowitz ME, et al. Effects of atorvastatin on early recurrent ischemic events in acute coronary syndromes: the MIRACL study. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 285: 1711–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 1495–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Tsai TT, Nallamothu BK, Mukherjee D, et al. Effect of statin use in patients with acute coronary syndromes and a serum low-density lipoprotein ≤80 mg/dl. Am J Cardiol 2005; 96: 1491–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Mukherjee D, Fang J, Chetcuti S, et al. Impact of combination evidence-based medical therapy on mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 2004; 109: 745–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mukherjee D, Fang J, Kline-Rogers E, et al. Impact of combination evidence based medical treatment in patients with acute coronary syndromes in various TIMI risk groups. Heart 2005; 91: 381–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ellerbeck EF, Jencks SF, Radford MJ, et al., for the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. Quality of care for Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction: a four-state pilot study. JAMA 1995; 273: 1509–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Gurwitz JH, Goldberg RJ, Chen Z, et al. β-blocker therapy in acute myocardial infarction: evidence for underutilization in the elderly. Am J Med 1992; 93: 605–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    McLaughlin TJ, Soumerai SB, Wilson DJ, et al. Adherence to national guidelines for drug treatment of suspected acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 799–805.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Mehta RH, Ruane TJ, McCargar PA, et al. The treatment of elderly diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 1301–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Mehta RH, Montoye CK, Gallogly M, et al. Improving quality of care for acute myocardial infarction: the guidelines applied in practice (GAP) initiative. JAMA 2002; 287: 1269–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Mehta RH, Montoye CK, Faul J, et al. Enhancing quality of care for acute myocardial infarction: shifting the focus of improvement from key indicators to process of care and tool use. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43: 2166–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Cannon CP, Weintraub WS, Demopoulos LA, et al. Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1879–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Wallentin L, Lagerqvist B, Husted S, et al. Outcome at 1 year after an invasive compared with a non-invasive strategy in unstable coronary-artery disease: the FRISC II invasive randomised trial. FRISC II Investigators: fast revascularisation during instability in coronary artery disease. Lancet 2000; 356: 9–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bhatt DL, Roe MT, Peterson ED, et al. Utilization of early invasive management strategies for high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative. JAMA 2004; 292: 2096–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    O’sullivan JJ, Conroy RM, Robinson K, et al. In-hospital prognosis of patients with fasting hyperglycemia after first myocardial infarction. Diabetes Care 1991; 14: 758–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Bellodi G, Manicardi V, Malavasi V, et al. Hyperglycemia and prognosis of acute myocardial infarction in patients without diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 1989; 64: 885–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Malmberg K, Norhammar A, Wedel H, et al. Glycometabolic state at admission: important risk marker of mortality in conventionally treated patients with diabetes mellitus and acute myocardial infarction: long-term results from the Diabetes and Insulin-Glucose infusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (DIGAMI) study. Circulation 1999; 99: 2626–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Cheung NW, Wong VW, McLean M. The Hyperglycemia: Intensive Insulin Infusion in Infarction (HI-5) study. A randomized controlled trial of insulin infusion therapy for myocardial infarction. Diabetes Care 2006; 29: 765–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Dormandy JA, Charbonnel B, Eckland DJA, et al. Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial in macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 1279–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Colwell JA, Nesto, RW. The platelet in diabetes: focus on prevention of ischemic events. Diabetes Care 2003; 26: 2181–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary and recommendations: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (committee on the management of patients with unstable angina). Circulation 2000; 102: 1193–209.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Cardiovascular MedicineUniversity of Michigan Medical CenterAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations