Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 29, 2026

Interventional Diagnostic Procedure: A Practical Guide for the Assessment of Coronary Vascular Function
Published on: March 15, 2022
Is an invasive interventional strategy of value in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes?
1Christiana Care Health System, Newark, DE 19718, USA. wweintraub@christianacare.org
Insights
An invasive strategy is cost-effective for high-risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, but not for low-risk patients. Intermediate-risk patients showed equivocal results, suggesting tailored treatment approaches.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Health Economics
Background:
- Cost-effectiveness analysis is crucial for evaluating therapeutic value in acute coronary syndromes.
- Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) require careful consideration of invasive versus conservative management strategies.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the cost-effectiveness of an invasive strategy in patients with NSTE-ACS.
- To determine risk stratification for optimal resource allocation in NSTE-ACS management.
Main Methods:
- Economic analysis utilizing data from the RITA 3 trial.
- Comparison of invasive strategy cost-effectiveness across different patient risk strata (low, intermediate, high).
Main Results:
- An invasive strategy was not cost-effective for low-risk NSTE-ACS patients.
- Cost-effectiveness was demonstrated for high-risk NSTE-ACS patients.
- Equivocal cost-effectiveness was observed in intermediate-risk NSTE-ACS patients.
Conclusions:
- An invasive strategy is recommended for high-risk NSTE-ACS patients.
- Risk stratification is essential for guiding cost-effective treatment decisions in NSTE-ACS.
- Further trials may face ethical and logistical challenges despite evolving technology.
Abstract:
Cost-effectiveness can be a helpful indicator of therapeutic value and is an important consideration when determining whether to use an invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndromes. In an economic analysis using results from RITA 3, Henriksson et al. found that an invasive strategy was not cost-effective in patients with low-risk disease, but was cost-effective for patients with high-risk disease and of equivocal cost-effectiveness in patients with intermediate-risk disease. This finding is consistent with those of other studies, especially FRISC II and TACTICS-TIMI 18, which found an invasive strategy to be cost-effective in patients with biomarker-positive NSTE myocardial infarction. An invasive strategy should, therefore, be considered for treatment of patients with high-risk NSTE myocardial infarction. Although available data are not based on the latest technology, another trial in this area would be difficult to conduct and of questionable ethics.
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Angina IV: Management
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Acute Coronary Syndrome V: Nursing Management