Summary of findings 2. Routine invasive strategies versus selective invasive strategies (conservative) for unstable angina and non‐ST elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) in the stent era.
| Routine invasive strategies versus selective invasive strategies (conservative) for UA/NSTEMI in the stent era | |||||
| Participant or population: participants with UA/NSTEMI in the stent era Settings: hospital setting Intervention: routine invasive strategies Comparison: selective invasive strategies (conservative) | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Selective invasive strategies (conservative) | Routine invasive strategies | ||||
| Complications of angiography or revascularization Bleeding | Study population | RR 1.73 (1.3 to 2.31) | 7584 (6 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| 42 per 1000 | 72 per 1000 (54 to 96) | ||||
| Moderate risk population | |||||
| 27 per 1000 | 47 per 1000 (35 to 62) | ||||
| Complications of angiography or revascularization Procedure‐related myocardial infarction | Study population | RR 1.87 (1.47 to 2.37) | 6380 (5 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| 30 per 1000 | 57 per 1000 (45 to 72) | ||||
| Moderate risk population | |||||
| 29 per 1000 | 54 per 1000 (43 to 69) | ||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; UA: unstable angina; NSTEMI: non ST segment myocardial infarction. | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate. | |||||
1 Downgraded by one due to possible risk of bias due to lack of blinding.