p.76 抽出テキスト

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

April 1, 2025 Circulation. 2025;151:e771–e862. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001309 e846

19 Bainey KR, Armstrong PW, Zheng Y, et al. Pharmacoinvasive strategy versus

primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction in clinical practice: insights from the Vital Heart Response Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:e008059. 20.	 Madan M, Halvorsen S, Di Mario C, et al. Relationship between time to invasive assessment and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing an early invasive strategy after fibrinolysis for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a patient-level analysis of the randomized early routine invasive clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2015;8:166–174. 21.	 Ellis SG, Tendera M, de Belder MA, et al. Facilitated PCI in patients with

ST-elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2205– 2217. 6.1. Rationale and Timing for a Routine Invasive or Selective Invasive Approach 1.	 Cannon CP, Weintraub WS, Demopoulos LA, et al. Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1879–1887. 2.	 Fox KA, Poole-Wilson PA, Henderson RA, et al. Interventional versus conservative treatment for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable Angina. Lancet. 2002;360:743– 751. 3.	 Invasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre study. Fragmin and Fast Revascularisation during Instability in Coronary artery disease Investigators. Lancet. 1999;354:708–715. 4.	 O’Donoghue M, Boden WE, Braunwald E, et al. Early invasive vs conservative treatment strategies in women and men with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300:71–80. 5.	 Mehta SR, Cannon CP, Fox KA, et al. Routine vs selective invasive strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA. 2005;293:2908–2917. 6.	 Fox KA, Clayton TC, Damman P, et al. Long-term outcome of a routine versus selective invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome a meta-analysis of individual patient data. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2435–2445. 7.	 de Winter RJ, Windhausen F, Cornel JH, et al. Early invasive versus selectively invasive management for acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1095–1104. 8.	 Jobs A, Mehta SR, Montalescot G, et al. Optimal timing of an invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: a metaanalysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2017;390:737–746. 9.	 Yoshida R, Ishii H, Morishima I, et al. Early versus delayed invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome and concomitant congestive heart failure. J Cardiol. 2019;74:320–327. 10.	 Zoni CR, Mukherjee D, Gulati M. Proposed new classification for acute coronary syndrome: acute coronary syndrome requiring immediate reperfusion. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;101:1177–1181. 11.	 Mehta SR, Granger CB, Boden WE, et al. Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2165– 2175. 12.	 Kofoed KF, Kelbaek H, Hansen PR, et al. Early versus standard care invasive examination and treatment of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome verdict randomized controlled trial. Circulation. 2018;138:2741–2750. 13.	 Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task orce on practice guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography). Circulation. 1999;99:2345–2357. 14.	 Elgendy IY, Mahmoud AN, Wen X, Bavry AA. Meta-analysis of randomized trials of long-term all-cause mortality in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome managed with routine invasive versus selective invasive strategies. Am J Cardiol. 2017;119:560–564. 15.	 Awan A, Ogunti R, Fatima U, et al. Timing of percutaneous coronary intervention in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: meta-analysis and systematic review of literature. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020;21:1398– 1404. 16.	 Kite TA, Kurmani SA, Bountziouka V, et al. Timing of invasive strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:3148–3161. 17.	 Tamis-Holland JE, Jneid H, Reynolds HR, et al. Contemporary diagnosis and

management of patients with myocardial infarction in the absence of ob- structive coronary artery disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019;139:e891–e908. 18.	 Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI

guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145:e18–e114. 7.1. Vascular Access Approach for PCI 1.	 Valgimigli M, Frigoli E, Leonardi S, et al. Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;392:835–848. 2.	 Bernat I, Horak D, Stasek J, et al. ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by radial or femoral approach in a multicenter randomized clinical trial: the STEMI-RADIAL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:964–972. 3.	 Gargiulo G, Giacoppo D, Jolly SS, et al. Effects on mortality and major bleeding of radial versus femoral artery access for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention: meta-analysis of individual patient data from 7 multicenter randomized clinical trials. Circulation. 2022;146:1329– 1343. 4.	 Ando G, Capodanno D. Radial versus femoral access in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:932–940. 5.	 Ando G, Capodanno D. Radial access reduces mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes: results from an updated trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2016;9:660–670. 6.	 Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabro P, et al. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2465–2476. 7.	 Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145:e18–e114. 8.	 Masoudi FA, Ponirakis A, de Lemos JA, et al. Trends in US cardiovascular care: 2016 report from 4 ACC national cardiovascular data registries. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:1427–1450. 9.	 Kok MM, Weernink MGM, von Birgelen C, et al. Patient preference for radial versus femoral vascular access for elective coronary procedures: the PRE- VAS study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;91:17–24. 10.	 Gaudino M, Benedetto U, Fremes S, et al. Association of radial artery graft vs saphenous vein graft with long-term cardiovascular outcomes among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2020;324:179–187. 11.	 Dahal K, Rijal J, Lee J, et al. Transulnar versus transradial access for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;87:857–865. 12.	 Talha KM, Waqar E, Ashley KE, et al. Distal trans-radial access compared to conventional trans-radial access in coronary interventions: a meta-analysis. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2022;21:176–178. 13.	 Jolly SS, AlRashidi S, d’Entremont MA, et al. Routine ultrasonography guidance for femoral vascular access for cardiac procedures: the UNIVERSAL randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7:1110–1118. 14.	 Ferrante G, Rao SV, Juni P, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions across the entire spectrum of patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2016;9:1419–1434. 15.	 Le May M, Wells G, So D, et al. Safety and efficacy of femoral access vs

radial access in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the SAFARI- STEMI randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5:126–134. 7.2. Use of Aspiration Thrombectomy 1.	 Frobert O, Lagerqvist B, Olivecrona GK, et al. Thrombus aspiration during STsegment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1587– 1597. 2.	 Jolly SS, Cairns JA, Yusuf S, et al. Randomized trial of primary PCI with or without routine manual thrombectomy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1389– 1398. 3.	 Jolly SS, James S, Dzavik V, et al. Thrombus aspiration in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: an individual patient meta-analysis: Thrombectomy Trialists Collaboration. Circulation. 2017;135:143–152. 4.	 Stone GW, Maehara A, Witzenbichler B, et al. Intracoronary abciximab and aspiration thrombectomy in patients with large anterior myocardial infarction: the INFUSE-AMI randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;307:1817–1826. 5.	 Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI

guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American Col-

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on October 7, 2026