Rationale and design of the DEAR-OLD trial: Randomized evaluation of routinely Deferred versus EARly invasive strategy in elderly patients of 75 years or OLDer with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction

The Impact of Geriatric Conditions in Elderly Patients with Coronary Heart Disease: A State-of-the-Art Review

The growing geriatric population presenting with coronary artery disease poses a primary challenge for healthcare services. This is a highly heterogeneous population, often underrepresented in studies and clinical trials, with distinctive characteristics that render them particularly vulnerable to standard management/approaches. In this review, we aim to summarize the available evidence on the treatment of acute coronary syndrome in the elderly. Additionally, we contextualize frailty, comorbidity, sarcopenia, and cognitive impairment, common in these patients, within the realm of coronary artery disease, proposing strategies for each case that may assist in therapeutic approaches.

Management of acute coronary syndromes in older adults

Older patients are underrepresented in prospective studies and randomized clinical trials of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Over the last decade, a few specific trials have been conducted in this population, allowing more evidence-based management. Older adults are a heterogeneous, complex, and high-risk group whose management requires a multidimensional clinical approach beyond coronary anatomic variables. This review focuses on available data informing evidence-based interventional and pharmacological approaches for older adults with ACS, including guideline-directed management. Overall, an invasive approach appears to demonstrate a better benefit-risk ratio compared to a conservative one across the ACS spectrum, even considering patients' clinical complexity and multiple comorbidities. Conversely, more powerful strategies of antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention have been associated with increased bleeding events and no benefit in terms of mortality reduction. An interdisciplinary evaluation with geriatric assessment should always be considered to achieve a holistic approach and optimize any treatment on the basis of the underlying biological vulnerability.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of an invasive strategy compared to a conservative approach in patients > 65 years old with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Patients 65 years old and older largely represent (>50%) hospital-admitted patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Data are conflicting comparing efficacy of early routine invasive (within 48-72 hours of initial evaluation) versus conservative management of ACS in this population.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the effectiveness of routine early invasive strategy compared to conservative treatment in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events in patients 65 years old and older with non-ST elevation (NSTE) ACS.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar database.

STUDY SELECTION

The studies included were RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of invasive strategy compared to conservative treatment among patients ≥ 65 years old diagnosed with NSTEACS. Studies were included if they assessed any of the following outcomes of death, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, recurrent angina, and need for revascularization. Six articles were subsequently included in the meta-analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION

Three independent reviewers extracted the data of interest from the articles using a standardized data collection form that included study quality indicators. Disparity in assessment was adjudicated by another reviewer.

DATA SYNTHESIS

All pooled analyses were initially done using Fixed Effects model. For pooled analyses with significant heterogeneity (I2≥ 50%), the Random Effects model was used. A total of 3,768 patients were included, 1,986 in the invasive strategy group, and 1,782 in the conservative treatment group.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis showed less incidence of revascularization in the invasive (2%) over conservative treatment groups (8%), with overall risk ratio of 0.29 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.59). Across all pooled studies, no significant effect of invasive strategy on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and MI was observed. Only one study assessed the outcome of recurrent angina.

CONCLUSION

There was a significantly lower rate of revascularization in the invasive strategy group compared to the conservative treatment group. In the reduction of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, and stroke there was no significant effect of invasive strategy versus conservative treatment. This finding does not support the bias against early routine invasive intervention in patients ≥ 65 years old with NSTEACS. Further studies focusing on these patients with larger population sizes are still needed.