↓ Skip to main content

Early invasive versus non-invasive treatment in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (FRISC-II): 15 year follow-up of a prospective, randomised, multicentre study

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
30 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Early invasive versus non-invasive treatment in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (FRISC-II): 15 year follow-up of a prospective, randomised, multicentre study
Published in
The Lancet, August 2016
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31276-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lars Wallentin, Lars Lindhagen, Elisabet Ärnström, Steen Husted, Magnus Janzon, Søren Paaske Johnsen, Frederic Kontny, Tibor Kempf, Lars-Åke Levin, Bertil Lindahl, Mats Stridsberg, Elisabeth Ståhle, Per Venge, Kai C Wollert, Eva Swahn, Bo Lagerqvist, FRISC-II study group

Abstract

The FRISC-II trial was the first randomised trial to show a reduction in death or myocardial infarction with an early invasive versus a non-invasive treatment strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Here we provide a remaining lifetime perspective on the effects on all cardiovascular events during 15 years' follow-up. The FRISC-II prospective, randomised, multicentre trial was done at 58 Scandinavian centres in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. Between June 17, 1996, and Aug 28, 1998, we randomly assigned (1:1) 2457 patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome to an early invasive treatment strategy, aiming for revascularisation within 7 days, or a non-invasive strategy, with invasive procedures at recurrent symptoms or severe exercise-induced ischaemia. Plasma for biomarker analyses was obtained at randomisation. For long-term outcomes, we linked data with national health-care registers. The primary endpoint was a composite of death or myocardial infarction. Outcomes were compared as the average postponement of the next event, including recurrent events, calculated as the area between mean cumulative count-of-events curves. Analyses were done by intention to treat. At a minimum of 15 years' follow-up on Dec 31, 2014, data for survival status and death were available for 2421 (99%) of the initially recruited 2457 patients, and for other events after 2 years for 2182 (89%) patients. During follow-up, the invasive strategy postponed death or next myocardial infarction by a mean of 549 days (95% CI 204-888; p=0·0020) compared with the non-invasive strategy. This effect was larger in non-smokers (mean gain 809 days, 95% CI 402-1175; pinteraction=0·0182), patients with elevated troponin T (778 days, 357-1165; pinteraction=0·0241), and patients with high concentrations of growth differentiation factor-15 (1356 days, 507-1650; pinteraction=0·0210). The difference was mainly driven by postponement of new myocardial infarction, whereas the early difference in mortality alone was not sustained over time. The invasive strategy led to a mean of 1128 days (95% CI 830-1366) postponement of death or next readmission to hospital for ischaemic heart disease, which was consistent in all subgroups (p<0·0001). During 15 years of follow-up, an early invasive treatment strategy postponed the occurrence of death or next myocardial infarction by an average of 18 months, and the next readmission to hospital for ischaemic heart disease by 37 months, compared with a non-invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. This remaining lifetime perspective supports that an early invasive treatment strategy should be the preferred option in most patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, and Uppsala Clinical Research Center.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 172 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 13%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Student > Master 21 12%
Other 10 6%
Other 38 22%
Unknown 36 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 81 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 11%
Sports and Recreations 5 3%
Unspecified 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 43 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2022.
All research outputs
#788,950
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#6,516
of 42,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,053
of 349,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#128
of 436 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 67.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,062 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 436 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.