Randomized comparison between the invasive and conservative strategies in comorbid elderly patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction

Invasive versus conservative strategies for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in the elderly: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Advances in managing non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) have yet to clarify the optimal treatment for elderly patients, whose complex health profiles and underrepresentation in trials add challenges to decision-making.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials comparing invasive versus conservative strategies in elderly patients (≥ 70 years) with NSTE-ACS through October 2024. Co-primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities, with secondary outcomes including myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, stroke, decompensated heart failure, and bleeding events. Outcomes were analyzed using both risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR).

RESULTS

Analysis of 11 trials (4,114 patients) showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.98-1.11; HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.94-1.29) or cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.85-1.12; HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.73-1.20) between strategies. The invasive approach significantly reduced subsequent revascularization (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.27-0.62; HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.19- 0.47; p < 0.01 in both analyses) and MI risk (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57-0.99, p = 0.04; HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49-0.83, p < 0.01), though with some levels of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses for MI. Stroke and heart failure outcomes were comparable between strategies. However, it significantly increased the risk of both composite major and minor bleeding risk (RR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.02-2.20, p = 0.04) and major bleeding alone (RR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.04-3.56, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In elderly patients with NSTE-ACS, an invasive strategy reduces revascularization needs and, potentially, MI risk without impacting survival, but at the cost of increased bleeding risk. This supports individualized treatment decisions based on patient-specific characteristics, particularly bleeding risk and geriatric factors.

Updated evidence on selection and implementation of an invasive treatment strategy for older patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is the most common acute coronary syndrome diagnosis in older patients. In the UK, there are ~20 000 NSTEMI cases annually in patients aged ≥75 years. Despite therapeutic advances in pharmacological and invasive management, studies show that older patients with NSTEMI experience worse in-hospital and long-term outcomes than younger patients, suggesting a clear need for robust evidence in this cohort.The European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend that invasive management should be considered holistically with no specified age cut-offs. However, older patients are less likely to receive invasive management due to a paucity of evidence from trials that represent contemporary clinical characteristics of older adults. Recruiting older patients realistic of those encountered in clinical practice is hugely challenging. Chronological age alone does not reflect the heterogeneity of the older population; ~30% of older patients with NSTEMI are frail, ~65% are cognitively impaired and most live with at least two additional comorbidities that can influence risk. Weighing the risk of an NSTEMI in an older adult against competing risks attributable to underlying frailty, comorbidities and cognitive impairment poses a key challenge.Recently, the SENIOR-RITA trial showed that invasive management in older patients with NSTEMI is safe and reduces non-fatal myocardial infarction and subsequent revascularisation but does not improve mortality. Individualised risk assessment and shared decision-making is necessary to guide these nuanced decisions. This review discusses the latest evidence regarding invasive management in the older population with NSTEMI, including the impact of geriatric syndromes on clinical outcomes.

Effects of routine invasive management on reinfarction risk in older adults with frailty and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a subanalysis of a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials and meta-analyses indicate a reduced reinfarction risk with invasive management in older patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). This study investigated whether similar benefits might be observed in frail patients.

METHODS

The coMOrbilidades Síndrome Coronario Agudo - FRAIL (MOSCA-FRAIL) trial included 167 adults aged ≥70 years with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale ≥4 points) and NSTEMI, who were randomised to invasive (n=84) or conservative (n=83) strategy during the index hospitalisation. The primary end point of this subanalysis was reinfarction, considering all-cause mortality as a competing event, at a 3-year median follow-up. The time to first reinfarction and all reinfarctions (first and recurrent) were considered. The substudy was not prespecified.

RESULTS

The total number of deaths (93, 56%) exceeded that of first reinfarctions (32, 19%). Invasive treatment did not influence the reinfarction risk when accounting for death as a competing risk (subdistribution HR=0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40, p=0.56). An initially increased mortality risk with invasive management (significant between days 131 and 175) shifted to a lower mortality risk over time. A total of 45 reinfarctions (first and recurrent) were observed. The longitudinal trajectories corroborated that the invasive strategy did not reduce the risk of reinfarction over time (p=0.72). However, mortality followed a biphasic pattern, with higher mortality in the invasive group during the first 6 months and a reduction between 9 months and 3 years (p=0.05 for the entire time-dependent trajectory). The win ratio for the invasive strategy versus the conservative strategy was 1.08 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.63, p=0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

In older adults with frailty and NSTEMI, routine invasive management did not reduce the reinfarction risk at a 3-year follow-up. The high all-cause mortality associated with frailty may limit the impact of invasive management. Due to the limited sample size and risk for type II error, these findings should be considered hypothesis-generating.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03208153.

Rationale and design of the multicentric randomized EVAOLD trial: Evaluation of a strategy guided by imaging versus routine invasive strategy in elderly patients with ischemia

BACKGROUND

The management of myocardial infarction without ST segment elevation (NSTEMI) in elderly patients remains challenging, in particular the benefit/risk balance of routine revascularization remains uncertain.

STUDY DESIGN

EVAOLD is s a multicenter, prospective, open-label trial with 2 parallel arms in NSTEMI patients ≥80 years of age. The aim of the trial is to test whether a strategy of selective invasive management guided by ischemia stress imaging (IMG group) will be noninferior in preventing Major Adverse Cardiac and Cerebrovascular Events (MACCE, ie all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke) rates at 1 year compared with a routine invasive strategy (INV Group). Geriatric assessment and cost- effectiveness analysis will also be performed. A sample size of 1,756 patients (assuming a 10% rate of patients lost to follow-up) is needed to show noninferiority with 80% power. Noninferiority based on exponential survival curves will be declared if the upper limit of the 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the hazard ratio is lower than 1.24, corresponding to a noninferiority margin of 7% in absolute difference and an event rate of 40% in the INV group.

CONCLUSION

EVAOLD is a nationwide, prospective, open-label trial testing the noninferiority of a strategy of selective invasive management guided by ischemia stress imaging versus routine invasive strategy in elderly NSTEMI patients.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT03289728.

Invasive Treatment Strategy for Older Patients with Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Whether a conservative strategy of medical therapy alone or a strategy of medical therapy plus invasive treatment is more beneficial in older adults with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial involving patients 75 years of age or older with NSTEMI at 48 sites in the United Kingdom. The patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a conservative strategy of the best available medical therapy or an invasive strategy of coronary angiography and revascularization plus the best available medical therapy. Patients who were frail or had a high burden of coexisting conditions were eligible. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes (cardiovascular death) or nonfatal myocardial infarction assessed in a time-to-event analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1518 patients underwent randomization; 753 patients were assigned to the invasive-strategy group and 765 to the conservative-strategy group. The mean age of the patients was 82 years, 45% were women, and 32% were frail. A primary-outcome event occurred in 193 patients (25.6%) in the invasive-strategy group and 201 patients (26.3%) in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.14; P = 0.53) over a median follow-up of 4.1 years. Cardiovascular death occurred in 15.8% of the patients in the invasive-strategy group and 14.2% of the patients in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.44). Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 11.7% in the invasive-strategy group and 15.0% in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.99). Procedural complications occurred in less than 1% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In older adults with NSTEMI, an invasive strategy did not result in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (the composite primary outcome) than a conservative strategy over a median follow-up of 4.1 years. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation; BHF SENIOR-RITA ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN11343602.).

Invasive Versus Conservative Strategy in Older Adults ≥75 Years of Age With Non-ST-segment-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Older adults with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome are less likely to undergo an invasive strategy compared with younger patients. Randomized controlled trials traditionally exclude older adults because of their high burden of geriatric conditions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing invasive versus medical management or a selective invasive (conservative) strategy for older patients (age≥75 years) with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Fixed effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI) and individual secondary end points of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, MI, revascularization, stroke, and major bleeding. Nine studies with 2429 patients (invasive: 1228 versus control: 1201) with a mean follow-up of 21 months were included. An invasive strategy was associated with a significantly decreased risk of a composite of death and MI (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.54-0.83], P<0.001), MI (OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.45-0.70], P<0.001) and subsequent revascularization (OR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.16-0.48], P<0.001). There was no difference in all-cause death (OR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65-1.10], P=0.21), cardiovascular death (OR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63-1.15], P=0.30), stroke (OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.38-1.47], P=0.39), or major bleeding (OR, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.42-3.66], P=0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

In older patients ≥75 years old with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome, an invasive strategy reduced the risk of a composite of death and MI, MI, and subsequent revascularization compared with a conservative strategy alone. Older adults with higher burden of geriatric conditions should be included in future trials to improve generalizability to this growing population.

Older women with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive or conservative management: an individual patient data meta-analysis

Aims

Women and older patients are underrepresented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating treatment strategies following acute coronary syndrome. This study aims to evaluate the benefit of invasive vs. conservative strategy of older women with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS).

Methods and results

This analysis from an individual patient data meta-analysis included six RCTs comparing an invasive management with a conservative management in older NSTEACS patients. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, MI, urgent revascularization, and stroke. Follow-up time was censored at 1 year. In total, 717 women [median age 84.0 (interquartile range 81.0-87.0) years] were included. The primary endpoint occurred in 21.0% in the invasive strategy vs. 27.8% in the conservative strategy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.13, P = 0.160 using random effect] at 1-year follow-up. The invasive management was associated with reduced risk of MI (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.73, P < 0.001) and urgent revascularization (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.98, P = 0.045). No significant differences were identified in the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke. Among males, there was no significant association between the treatment strategy and primary or secondary endpoints.

Conclusion

An invasive strategy compared with a conservative strategy did not reduce the composite outcome of all-cause mortality or MI in older NSTEACS women at 1-year follow-up. An invasive strategy reduced the individual risk of MI and urgent revascularization. Our results support the beneficial role of the invasive strategy in older NSTEACS women.

Registration

This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023379819).

Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Elderly Patients: A Narrative Review through Decisional Crossroads

Diagnosis and treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) pose particular challenges in elderly patients. When high troponin levels are detected, the distinction between non-ischemic myocardial injury (NIMI), type 1, and type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) is the necessary first step to guide further care. However, the assessment of signs of ischemia is hindered in older patients, and no simple clinical or laboratory tool proved useful in this discrimination task. Current evidence suggests a benefit of an invasive vs. conservative approach in terms of recurrence of MI, with no significant impact on mortality. In patients with multivessel disease in which the culprit lesion has been treated, a physiology-guided complete percutaneous revascularization significantly reduced major events. The management of ACS in elderly patients is an example of the actual need for a multimodal, thorough clinical approach, coupled with shared decision-making, in order to ensure the best treatment and avoid futility. Such a need will likely grow throughout the next decades, with the aging of the world population. In this narrative review, we address pivotal yet common questions arising in clinical practice while caring for elderly patients with ACS.

Geriatric conditions and invasive management in frail patients with NSTEMI. A subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Invasive management in frail patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains controversial. We investigated the impact of various geriatric conditions.

METHODS

The MOSCA-FRAIL trial included 167 adults aged ≥ 70 years with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS] ≥ 4 points) and NSTEMI, who were randomized to either an invasive (n=84) or conservative (n=83) strategy. In addition to frailty, we measured activities of daily living (Barthel index), cognitive impairment (Pfeiffer test), and comorbidities (Charlson index). The primary endpoint was the difference (invasive minus conservative) in restricted mean survival time (RMST) for all-cause mortality at a median follow-up of 3.9 years.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients died. The RMST difference favored invasive management at the CFS 25th percentile (CFS=4; 157 days, 95%CI, 18-295; P=.027), which changed to a nonsignificant effect at the 50th and 75th percentiles. The RMST difference remained nonsignificant, irrespective of the severity of other geriatric assessments. In time-to-event analysis, invasive management was associated with an initially lower life expectancy, peaking at around 1 year, among all subgroups. However, patients with CFS=4 experienced a benefit at the end of follow-up (181 days, 95%CI, 19-343), whereas those with CFS >4 did not (-16 days, 95%CI, -217 to 186; interaction P=.16). Subgroups defined by other geriatric markers showed a similar time-dependent trend, albeit with weaker statistical interaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adults with frailty and NSTEMI, the CFS might be useful for evaluating the relative risks and benefits of invasive management. A CFS >4 could serve as a valuable threshold for decision-making.

Coronary artery disease management in older adults: revascularization and exercise training

The mean age of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is steadily increasing. In older patients, there is a tendency to underutilize invasive approach, coronary revascularization, up-to-date pharmacological therapies, and secondary prevention strategies, including cardiac rehabilitation. Older adults with CAD commonly exhibit atypical symptoms, multi-vessel disease involvement, complex coronary anatomy, and a higher presence of risk factors and comorbidities. Although both invasive procedures and medical treatments are characterized by a higher risk of complications, avoidance may result in a suboptimal outcome. Often, overlooked factors, such as coronary microvascular disease, malnutrition, and poor physical performance, play a key role in determining prognosis, yet they are not routinely assessed or addressed in older patients. Historically, clinicians have relied on sub-analyses or observational findings to make clinical decisions, as older adults were frequently excluded or under-represented in clinical studies. Recently, dedicated evidence through randomized clinical trials has become available for older CAD patients. Nevertheless, the management of older CAD patients still raises several important questions. This review aims to comprehensively summarize and critically evaluate this emerging evidence, focusing on invasive management and coronary revascularization. Furthermore, it seeks to contextualize these interventions within the framework of improved risk stratification tools for older CAD patients, through user-friendly scales along with emphasizing the importance of promoting physical activity and exercise training to enhance the outcomes of invasive and medical treatments. This comprehensive approach may represent the key to improving prognosis in the complex and growing patient population of older CAD patients.

Frailty and Cardiovascular Health

The incidence of frailty and cardiovascular disease (CVD) increases as the population ages. There is a bidirectional relationship between frailty and CVD, and both conditions share several risk factors and underlying biological mechanisms. Frailty has been established as an independent prognostic marker in patients with CVD. Moreover, its presence significantly influences both primary and secondary prevention strategies for adults with CVD while also posing a barrier to the inclusion of these patients in pivotal clinical trials and advanced cardiac interventions. This review discusses the current knowledge base on the relationship between frailty and CVD, how managing CVD risk factors can modify frailty, the influence of frailty on CVD management, and future directions for frailty detection and modification in patients with CVD.

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes with previous coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis of invasive vs. conservative management

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A routine invasive strategy is recommended in the management of higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs). However, patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery were excluded from key trials that informed these guidelines. Thus, the benefit of a routine invasive strategy is less certain in this specific subgroup.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. A comprehensive search was performed of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible studies were RCTs of routine invasive vs. a conservative or selective invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS that included patients with previous CABG. Summary data were collected from the authors of each trial if not previously published. Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and cardiac-related hospitalization. Using a random-effects model, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Summary data were obtained from 11 RCTs, including previously unpublished subgroup outcomes of nine trials, comprising 897 patients with previous CABG (477 routine invasive, 420 conservative/selective invasive) followed up for a weighted mean of 2.0 (range 0.5-10) years. A routine invasive strategy did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.29), cardiac mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.70-1.58), myocardial infarction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65-1.23), or cardiac-related hospitalization (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78-1.40).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first meta-analysis assessing the effect of a routine invasive strategy in patients with prior CABG who present with NSTE-ACS. The results confirm the under-representation of this patient group in RCTs of invasive management in NSTE-ACS and suggest that there is no benefit to a routine invasive strategy compared to a conservative approach with regard to major adverse cardiac events. These findings should be validated in an adequately powered RCT.

Pharmacotherapy for Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Aging Population

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide a comprehensive summary of relevant studies and evidence concerning the utilization of different pharmacotherapeutic and revascularization strategies in managing coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome specifically in the older adult population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Approximately 30% to 40% of hospitalized patients with acute coronary syndrome are older adults, among whom the majority of cardiovascular-related deaths occur. When compared to younger patients, these individuals generally experience inferior clinical outcomes. Most clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of various therapeutics have primarily enrolled patients under the age of 75, in addition to excluding those with geriatric complexities. In this review, we emphasize the need for a personalized and comprehensive approach to pharmacotherapy for coronary heart disease and acute coronary syndrome in older adults, considering concomitant geriatric syndromes and age-related factors to optimize treatment outcomes while minimizing potential risks and complications. In the realm of clinical practice, cardiovascular and geriatric risks are closely intertwined, with both being significant factors in determining treatments aimed at reducing negative outcomes and attaining health conditions most valued by older adults.

Assessment of the Impact of Comorbidities on Outcomes in Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) Patients: A Narrative Review

Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, occurring when the heart's need for oxygen cannot be met. It is defined by elevated cardiac biomarkers without ST-segment elevation and often carries a poorer prognosis than most ST-segment elevation events. NSTEMI usually results from severe coronary artery narrowing, transient occlusion, or microembolization of thrombus/atheromatous material. Patients with NSTEMI often have multiple comorbidities, which can worsen their prognosis and complicate treatment. This study aims to investigate the impact of comorbidities such as hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obesity, dyslipidemia, and smoking on patients with NSTEMI. The prevalence of each comorbidity is examined individually within the NSTEMI population to provide a clearer picture of how frequently these conditions co-occur with NSTEMI and how they affect the established NSTEMI treatment protocols.  This paper sheds light on the interaction between NSTEMI and commonly associated comorbidities through a comprehensive literature review and data analysis. This is critical for optimizing clinical decision-making and enhancing patient care, ultimately improving outcomes in this high-risk patient population.

Invasive vs. conservative management of older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) are less likely to receive guideline-recommended care including coronary angiography and revascularization. Evidence-based recommendations regarding interventional management strategies in this patient cohort are scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of routine invasive vs. conservative management of NSTEACS by using individual patient data (IPD) from all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including older patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus were searched between 1 January 2010 and 11 September 2023. RCTs investigating routine invasive and conservative strategies in persons >70 years old with NSTEACS were included. Observational studies or trials involving populations outside the target range were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year. One-stage IPD meta-analyses were adopted by use of random-effects and fixed-effect Cox models. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023379819).

RESULTS

Six eligible studies were identified including 1479 participants. The primary endpoint occurred in 181 of 736 (24.5%) participants in the invasive management group compared with 215 of 743 (28.9%) participants in the conservative management group with a hazard ratio (HR) from random-effects model of 0.87 (95% CI 0.63-1.22; P = .43). The hazard for MI at 1 year was significantly lower in the invasive group compared with the conservative group (HR from random-effects model 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.87; P = .006). Similar results were seen for urgent revascularization (HR from random-effects model 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.95; P = .037). There was no significant difference in mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

No evidence was found that routine invasive treatment for NSTEACS in older patients reduces the risk of a composite of all-cause mortality and MI within 1 year compared with conservative management. However, there is convincing evidence that invasive treatment significantly lowers the risk of repeat MI or urgent revascularisation. Further evidence is needed from ongoing larger clinical trials.

Invasive Treatment Strategy in Adults With Frailty and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The MOSCA-FRAIL randomized clinical trial compared invasive and conservative treatment strategies in patients with frailty with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). It showed no differences in the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 1 year.

Objective

To assess the outcomes of the MOSCA-FRAIL trial during extended follow-up.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The MOSCA-FRAIL randomized clinical trial was conducted at 13 hospitals in Spain between July 7, 2017, and January 9, 2021, and included 167 adults (aged ≥70 years) with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥4) and NSTEMI. In this preplanned secondary analysis, follow-up was extended to January 31, 2023. Data analysis was performed from April 5 to 29, 2023, using the intention-to-treat principle.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to a routine invasive (coronary angiography and revascularization if feasible [n = 84]) or a conservative (medical treatment with coronary angiography only if recurrent ischemia [n = 83]) strategy.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was the difference in restricted mean survival time (RMST). Secondary end points included readmissions for any cause, considering recurrent readmissions.

Results

Among the 167 patients included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 86 (5) years; 79 (47.3%) were men and 88 (52.7%) were women. A total of 93 deaths and 367 readmissions accrued. The RMST for all-cause death over the entire follow-up was 3.13 (95% CI, 2.72-3.60) years in the invasive and 3.06 (95% CI, 2.84-3.32) years in the conservative treatment groups. The RMST analysis showed inconclusive differences in survival time (invasive minus conservative difference, 28 [95% CI, -188 to 230] days). Patients under invasive treatment tended to have shorter survival in the first year (-28 [95% CI, -63 to 7] days), which improved after the first year (192 [95% CI, 90-230] days). Kaplan-Meier mortality curves intersected, displaying higher mortality to 1 year in the invasive group that shifted to a late benefit (landmark analysis hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.33-0.99]; P = .045). Early harm was more evident in the subgroup with a Clinical Frailty Scale score greater than 4. No differences were found for the secondary end points.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this extended follow-up of a randomized clinical trial of patients with frailty and NSTEMI, an invasive treatment strategy did not improve outcomes at a median follow-up of 1113 (IQR, 443-1441) days. However, a differential distribution of deaths was observed, with early harm followed by later benefit. The phenomenon of depletion of susceptible patients may be responsible for this behavior.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03208153.

Beyond MACE: a multidimensional approach to outcomes in clinical trials for older adults with stable ischemic heart disease

The global population of older adults is expanding rapidly resulting in a shift towards managing multiple chronic diseases that coexist and may be exacerbated by cardiovascular illness. Stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) is a predominant contributor to morbidity and mortality in the older adult population. Although results from clinical trials demonstrate that chronological age is a predictor of poor health outcomes, the current management approach remains suboptimal due to insufficient representation of older adults in randomized trials and the inadequate consideration for the interaction between biological aging, concurrent geriatric syndromes, and patient preferences. A shift towards a more patient-centered approach is necessary for appropriately and effectively managing SIHD in the older adult population. In this review, we aim to demonstrate the distinctive needs of older adults who prioritize holistic health outcomes like functional capacity, cognitive abilities, mental health, and quality of life alongside the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes reported in cardiovascular clinical trials. An individualized, patient-centered approach that involves shared decision-making regarding outcome prioritization is needed when any treatment strategy is being considered. By prioritizing patients and addressing their unique needs for successful aging, we can provide more effective care to a patient population that exhibits the highest cardiovascular risks.

Comprehensive evaluation of time-varied outcomes for invasive and conservative strategies in patients with NSTE-ACS: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses comparing invasive and conservative strategies in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) are highly debatable. We systematically evaluate the efficacy of invasive and conservative strategies in NSTE-ACS based on time-varied outcomes.

Methods

The RCTs for the invasive versus conservative strategies were identified by searching PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial data for studies with a minimum follow-up time of 30 days were included. We categorized the follow-up time into six varied periods, namely, ≤6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, and ≥10 years. The time-varied outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), death, myocardial infarction (MI), rehospitalization, cardiovascular death, bleeding, in-hospital death, and in-hospital bleeding. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis) were calculated. The random effects model was used.

Results

This meta-analysis included 30 articles of 17 RCTs involving 12,331 participants. We found that the invasive strategy did not provide appreciable benefits for NSTE-ACS in terms of MACE, death, and cardiovascular death at all time points compared with the conservative strategy. Although the risk of MI was reduced within 6 months (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94) for the invasive strategy, no significant differences were observed in other periods. The invasive strategy reduced the rehospitalization rate within 6 months (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52-0.90), 1 year (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.86), and 2 years (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-1.00). Of note, an increased risk of bleeding (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.28-2.54) and in-hospital bleeding (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.52-3.10) was observed for the invasive strategy within 6 months. In subgroups stratified by high-risk features, the invasive strategy decreased MACE for patients aged ≥65 years within 6 months (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.78) and 1 year (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.91) and showed benefits for men within 6 months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.92). In other subgroups stratified according to diabetes, ST-segment deviation, and troponin levels, no significant differences were observed between the two strategies.

Conclusions

An invasive strategy is superior to a conservative strategy in reducing early events for MI and rehospitalizations, but the invasive strategy did not improve the prognosis in long-term outcomes for patients with NSTE-ACS.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021289579, identifier PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021289579.

Conservative versus Invasive Strategy in Elderly Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Insights from the International POPular Age Registry

This registry assessed the impact of conservative and invasive strategies on major adverse clinical events (MACE) in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Patients aged ≥75 years with NSTEMI were prospectively registered from European centers and followed up for one year. Outcomes were compared between conservative and invasive groups in the overall population and a propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort. MACE included cardiovascular death, acute coronary syndrome, and stroke. The study included 1190 patients (median age 80 years, 43% female). CAG was performed in 67% (N = 798), with two-thirds undergoing revascularization. Conservatively treated patients had higher baseline risk. After propensity score matching, 319 patient pairs were successfully matched. MACE occurred more frequently in the conservative group (total population 20% vs. 12%, adjHR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.77, p = 0.001), remaining significant in the PSM cohort (18% vs. 12%, adjHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.81, p = 0.004). In conclusion, an early invasive strategy was associated with benefits over conservative management in elderly patients with NSTEMI. Risk factors associated with ischemia and bleeding should guide strategy selection rather than solely relying on age.

Management of Coronary Artery Disease in Older Adults: Recent Advances and Gaps in Evidence

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is highly prevalent in older adults, yet its management remains challenging. Treatment choices are made complex by the frailty burden of older patients, a high prevalence of comorbidities and body composition abnormalities (e.g., sarcopenia), the complexity of coronary anatomy, and the frequent presence of multivessel disease, as well as the coexistence of major ischemic and bleeding risk factors. Recent randomized clinical trials and epidemiological studies have provided new data on optimal management of complex patients with CAD. However, frail older adults are still underrepresented in the literature. This narrative review aims to highlight the importance of assessing frailty as an aid to guide therapeutic decision-making and tailor CAD management to the specific needs of older adults, taking into account age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes, polypharmacy, and potential drug interactions. We also discuss gaps in the evidence and offer perspectives on how best in the future to optimize the global strategy of CAD management in older adults.

Effect of Routine Invasive vs Conservative Strategy in Older Adults With Frailty and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

To our knowledge, no randomized clinical trial has compared the invasive and conservative strategies in frail, older patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).

Objective

To compare outcomes of invasive and conservative strategies in frail, older patients with NSTEMI at 1 year.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted at 13 Spanish hospitals between July 7, 2017, and January 9, 2021, and included 167 older adult (≥70 years) patients with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥4) and NSTEMI. Data analysis was performed from April 2022 to June 2022.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to routine invasive (coronary angiography and revascularization if feasible; n = 84) or conservative (medical treatment with coronary angiography for recurrent ischemia; n = 83) strategy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the number of days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH) from discharge to 1 year. The coprimary end point was the composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or postdischarge revascularization.

Results

The study was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic when 95% of the calculated sample size had been enrolled. Among the 167 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 86 (5) years, and mean (SD) Clinical Frailty Scale score was 5 (1). While not statistically different, DAOH were about 1 month (28 days; 95% CI, -7 to 62) greater for patients managed conservatively (312 days; 95% CI, 289 to 335) vs patients managed invasively (284 days; 95% CI, 255 to 311; P = .12). A sensitivity analysis stratified by sex did not show differences. In addition, we found no differences in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.74-2.85; P = .28). There was a 28-day shorter survival in the invasive vs conservatively managed group (95% CI, -63 to 7 days; restricted mean survival time analysis). Noncardiac reasons accounted for 56% of the readmissions. There were no differences in the number of readmissions or days spent in the hospital after discharge between groups. Neither were there differences in the coprimary end point of ischemic cardiac events (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.54-1.57; P = .78).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of NSTEMI in frail older patients, there was no benefit to a routine invasive strategy in DAOH during the first year. Based on these findings, a policy of medical management and watchful observation is recommended for older patients with frailty and NSTEMI.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03208153.

Role and relevance of risk stratification models in the modern-day management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes

We summarise the international guidelines surrounding risk stratification as well as discuss new emerging data for future development of a new risk model in the management of patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). NSTE-ACS accounts for the bulk of acute coronary syndrome presentations in the UK, but management strategies in this group of patients have remained a subject of debate for decades. Patients with NSTE-ACS represent a heterogeneous population with a wide variation in short-term and long-term clinical outcomes, which makes a uniform, standardised treatment approach ineffective and inappropriate. Studies in the modern era have provided some guidance in treating this subset of patients: the provision of early, more potent therapies has been shown to improve outcomes in patients at a particularly elevated risk of adverse outcomes. International guidelines recommend adopting an individualised treatment approach through the use of validated risk prediction models to identify such patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. The present available evidence, however, is based on dated demographics, different diagnostic thresholds and outdated therapies. In particular, the evidence has limited applicability to female patients and older people with frailty. Moreover, the current risk models do not capture key prognostic variables, leading to an inaccurate estimation of patients' baseline risk and subsequent mistreatment. Therefore, the current risk models are no longer fit for purpose and there is a need for risk prediction scores that account for different population demographics, higher sensitivity troponin assays and contemporary treatment options.

Angiographic and Procedural Characteristics in Frail Older Patients with Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background

Angiographic and procedural characteristics stratified by frailty status are not known in older patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS). We evaluated angiographic and procedural characteristics in older adults with NSTEACS by frailty category, as well as associations of baseline and residual SYNTAX scores with long-term outcomes.

Methods

In this study, 271 NSTEACS patients aged ≥75 years underwent coronary angiography. Frailty was assessed using the Fried criteria. Angiographic analysis was performed using QAngio® XA Medis in a core laboratory. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) consisted of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke or transient ischaemic attack, repeat unplanned revascularisation and significant bleeding.

Results

Mean (±SD) patient age was 80.5 ± 4.9 years. Compared with robust patients, patients with frailty had more severe culprit lesion calcification (OR 5.40; 95% CI [1.75-16.8]; p=0.03). In addition, patients with frailty had a smaller mean improvement in culprit lesion stenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (50.6%; 95% CI [45.7-55.6]) than robust patients (58.6%; 95% CI [53.5-63.7]; p=0.042). There was no association between frailty phenotype and completeness of revascularisation (OR 0.83; 95% CI [0.36-1.93]; p=0.67). A high baseline SYNTAX score (≥33) was associated with adjusted (age and sex) 5-year MACE (HR 1.40; 95% CI [1.08-1.81]; p=0.01), as was a high residual SYNTAX score (≥8; adjusted HR 1.22; 95% CI [1.00-1.49]; p=0.047).

Conclusion

Frail adults presenting with NSTEACS have more severe culprit lesion calcification. Frail adults were just as likely as robust patients to receive complete revascularisation. Baseline and residual SYNTAX score were associated with MACE at 5 years.

Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Older Adult Population: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Diagnostic and therapeutic advances during the past decades have substantially improved health outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndrome. Both age-related physiological changes and accumulated cardiovascular risk factors increase the susceptibility to acute coronary syndrome over a lifetime. Compared with younger patients, outcomes for acute coronary syndrome in the large and growing demographic of older adults are relatively worse. Increased atherosclerotic plaque burden and complexity of anatomic disease, compounded by age-related cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbid conditions, contribute to the worse prognosis observed in older individuals. Geriatric syndromes, including frailty, multimorbidity, impaired cognitive and physical function, polypharmacy, and other complexities of care, can undermine the therapeutic efficacy of guidelines-based treatments and the resiliency of older adults to survive and recover, as well. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we (1) review age-related physiological changes that predispose to acute coronary syndrome and management complexity; (2) describe the influence of commonly encountered geriatric syndromes on cardiovascular disease outcomes; and (3) recommend age-appropriate and guideline-concordant revascularization and acute coronary syndrome management strategies, including transitions of care, the use of cardiac rehabilitation, palliative care services, and holistic approaches. The primacy of individualized risk assessment and patient-centered care decision-making is highlighted throughout.

Meta-Analysis on Invasive Versus Conservative Strategy in Patients Older Than Seventy Years With Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Management of non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) has evolved over the years, but most published data are from younger patients. Data on the NSTEMI management in older patients remain limited. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the long-term outcomes of invasive versus conservative strategies in older patients (>70 years old) with NSTEMI. Of 1,550 reports searched, 4 randomized controlled trials (1,126 patients) were included in the analysis, with a median follow-up of 1.25 years (range: 1 to 2.5 years). The median age of included patients was 83.6 (interquartile range: 2.8 years). The invasive strategy was associated with significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40 to 0.91, I² = 54%; 3 trials] and unplanned revascularization (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.64, I² = 1.7%; 3 trials] than was the conservative strategy. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.18, I² = 0%; 4 trials], myocardial infarction (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.19, I² = 54.7%; 4 trials], or bleeding (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.93, I² = 0%; 3 trials] between the strategies. In conclusion, the use of initial invasive strategy in older patients presenting with NSTEMI was associated with a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event and unplanned revascularization than that of the initial conservative strategy without increased bleeding.

Comparing health outcomes between coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review

Aim

To assess the current evidence comparing the health outcomes of coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with acute coronary syndrome.

Findings

Available studies are observational and limited by incomplete statistical adjustment required for robust causal analysis. There may be a signal for improved outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients treated invasively vs conservatively.

Message

Robust studies are needed to inform the optimal selection of coronary interventions in frail older patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Purpose

To assess current evidence comparing the impact of available coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with different subtypes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on health outcomes.

Methods

Scopus, Embase and PubMed were systematically searched in May 2022 for studies comparing outcomes between coronary interventions in frail older patients with ACS. Studies were excluded if they provided no objective assessment of frailty during the index admission, under-represented patients aged 75 years or older, or included patients with non-ACS coronary disease without presenting results for the ACS subgroup. Following data extraction from the included studies, a qualitative synthesis of results was undertaken.

Results

Nine studies met all eligibility criteria. All eligible studies were observational. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across study designs regarding ACS subtypes included, frailty assessments used, coronary interventions compared, and outcomes studied. All studies were assessed to be at high risk of bias. Notably, adjustment for confounders was limited or not adequately reported in all studies. The comparative assessment suggested a possible efficacy signal for invasive treatment relative to conservative treatment but possibly at the risk of increased bleeding events.

Conclusions

There is a paucity of evidence comparing health outcomes between different coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with ACS. Available evidence is at high risk of bias. Given the growing importance of ACS in frail patients aged 75 years or older, new studies are needed to inform optimal ACS care for this population. Future studies should rigorously adjust for confounders.

Age Considerations in the Invasive Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes

The elderly constitute a major proportion of patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the US. Due to pre-existing comorbidities, frailty, and increased risk ofcomplications from medical and invasive therapies, management ofACS in the elderly population poses challenges. In patients with ST-elevation MI, urgent revascularization with primary percutaneous coronary intervention remains the standard of care irrespective of age. However, an early invasive approach in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation MI is based on individual evaluation of risks versus benefits. In this review, the authors discuss the unique characteristics of elderly patients presenting with ACS, specific geriatric conditions that need to be considered while making treatment decisions in these situations, and available evidence, current guidelines, and future directions for invasive management of elderly patients with ACS.

Invasive treatment strategy in patients aged 80 years or older with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Invasive treatment is commonly recommended for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS). However, the efficacy of this approach in patients aged ≥80 years remains uncertain.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed consecutive NSTE-ACS patients ≥80 years of age who were hospitalized at our cardiovascular center from December 2012 to July 2019. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received invasive treatment (coronary angiography and, if indicated, revascularization) or not. Patients who died in the first 3 days after admission without receiving invasive treatment were excluded. The effect of invasive timed treatment was also explored by dividing patients into timely invasive or delayed invasive groups according to their risk classification. Multivariate COX regression, invasive probability weighting and propensity score matching were used to adjust for confounding variables. The primary outcome was all-cause death during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 1,201 patients with a median age of 82.0 (IQR, 81.0-84.0) were divided into two groups: 656 (54.6%) patients in the invasive group and 545 (45.4%) patients in the conservative group. Follow-up survival information was available for up to 6 years (median 3.0 years). During the follow-up, 296 (24.6%) patients died. After adjusting for confounding variables, the invasive treatment strategy was significantly associated with a lower risk of long-term mortality (HR =0.70, 95% CI: 0.54-0.92, P=0.010). No difference was found between timely invasive and delayed invasive interventions with mortality (HR =0.92, 95% CI: 0.57-1.47, P=0.725).

CONCLUSIONS

Invasive treatment was associated with lower mortality in patients ≥80 years of age with NSTE-ACS over a median of a 3-year follow-up. The invasive intervention time did not impact the outcome.

Evaluating the systemic immune-inflammation index for in-hospital and long-term mortality in elderly non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients

INTRODUCTION

This investigation aimed to evaluate the predictive value of the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) for in-hospital and long-term mortality in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).

METHODS

This retrospective investigation included 314 consecutive elderly NSTEMI patients in a tertiary center. SII is computed as (neutrophils × platelets)/lymphocytes. Based on the increased SII values, we classified the research sample into three tertile groups as T1, T2, and T3. The in-hospital and long-term mortality were defined as the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients in the T3 group had lower chances of survival in the in-hospital and long-term periods compared with those in the T2 and T1 groups. According to the multivariable Cox regression models, SII independently related with in-hospital (hazard ratio (HR): 1.001, 95% CI: 1.000-1.1003, p = 0.038) and long-term mortality (HR: 1.004, 95% CI: 1.002-1.006, p < 0.001). To predict long-term mortality, the optimal SII value was > 2174 with 80% sensitivity and 85.4% specificity. SII had a slightly lower but statistically non-inferior discriminative ability for long-term mortality compared with the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) in the receiver operating characteristic curve comparison (AUC: 86.2 vs. AUC: 890, p > 0.05). Additionally, combining SII with traditional risk factors and the CCI revealed a significant improvement in C-statistics.

CONCLUSION

This investigation may be the first to demonstrate that SII is independently linked with in-hospital and long-term mortality in elderly NSTEMI patients.

Clinical Characteristics, Management Strategies, and Outcomes of Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients With and Without Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Background

There are limited data on the management strategies, temporal trends and clinical outcomes of patients who present with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and have a prior history of CABG.

Methods and Results

We identified 287 658 patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction between 2010 and 2017 in the United Kingdom Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project database. Clinical and outcome data were analyzed by dividing into 2 groups by prior history of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG): group 1, no prior CABG (n=262 362); and group 2, prior CABG (n=25 296). Patients in group 2 were older, had higher GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) risk scores and burden of comorbid illnesses. More patients underwent coronary angiography (69% versus 63%) and revascularization (53% versus 40%) in group 1 compared with group 2. Adjusted odds of receiving inpatient coronary angiogram (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88–0.95; P<0.001) and revascularization (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.70–0.76; P<0.001) were lower in group 2 compared with group 1. Following multivariable logistic regression analyses, the OR of in‐hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of inpatient death and reinfarction; OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90–1.04; P=0.44), all‐cause mortality (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88–1.04; P=0.31), reinfarction (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89–1.17; P=0.78), and major bleeding (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90–1.11; P=0.98) were similar across groups. Lower adjusted risk of inpatient mortality (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46–0.98; P=0.04) but similar risk of bleeding (OR,1.07; CI, 0.79–1.44; P=0.68) and reinfarction (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.81–1.57; P=0.47) were observed in group 2 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention compared with those managed medically.

Conclusions

In this national cohort, patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction with prior CABG had a higher risk profile, but similar risk‐adjusted in‐hospital adverse outcomes compared with patients without prior CABG. Patients with prior CABG who received percutaneous coronary intervention had lower in‐hospital mortality compared with those who received medical management.

Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Older Patient

Coronary artery disease is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, and its prevalence increases with age. The growing number of older patients and their differential characteristics make its management a challenge in clinical practice. The aim of this review is to summarize the state-of-the-art in diagnosis and treatment of acute coronary syndromes in this subgroup of patients. This comprises peculiarities of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) management, updated evidence of non-STEMI therapeutic strategies, individualization of antiplatelet treatment (weighting ischemic and hemorrhagic risks), as well as assessment of geriatric conditions and ethical issues in decision making.

Outcomes of Nonagenarians With Acute Coronary Syndrome

OBJECTIVES

Nonagenarians are a fast-growing age group among cardiovascular patients, but data about their management and prognosis after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is scarce. This study aimed to analyze characteristics of nonagenarian patients with ACS and to compare in-hospital and 1-year clinical outcomes between those treated with medical treatment (MT) alone and those receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

DESIGN

Multicenter observational study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We included consecutive nonagenarian patients with ACS admitted at 4 academic centers between 2005 and 2018. Only patients with type 1 myocardial infarction were included.

METHODS

Standardized definitions of all patient-related variables, clinical diagnoses, and hospital complications and outcomes were used. The primary endpoint was 1-year all-cause mortality. Long-term survival was compared between patients undergoing PCI and those managed with MT alone. Given differences in baseline characteristics could substantially interfere in outcomes, 3 sensitivity analyses were performed to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 680 nonagenarians were included (59% females). Of them, 373 (55%) patients presented with non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS) and 307 (45%) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). A coronary angiogram was performed in 115 (31%) of NSTE-ACS and in 182 (60%) of STEMI patients with subsequent PCI in 81 (22%) and 156 (51%), respectively. Overall mortality rates were 17% in-hospital and 39% at 1-year follow-up. PCI was independently associated with a decreased risk of 1-year all-cause death [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35, 0.95; P < .05], mainly observed in those patients without disability (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37, 0.94; P < .01) and lower Killip class (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28, 0.89; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The prognosis of nonagenarians after an ACS was associated with comorbidities and the therapeutic approach. Although PCI appeared to be a safe and effective strategy, it is still necessary to refine the decision-making process in this high-risk population group.

Comorbidities and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Elderly Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

Aim. To assess comorbidities in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to analyze patient subgroups with different treatment strategies in the Regional Vascular Center (RVC).

Material and methods. The prospective study included 205 patients with confirmed ACS 75 years and older, the mean age was 81±4.9 years, and 68% were women. ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was diagnosed in 46 (22.4 %) patients, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) was diagnosed in 159 (77,6 %) patients. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was calculated in every patient. Early outcomes were defined as those assessed during hospital stay. Late outcomes were assessed at 6 months after the discharge using phone calls and/or clinic visits. All patients provided written informed consent.

Results. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in 42% of patients. In patients with STEMI and NSTEMI PCI was performed in 73% and 32%, respectively. Mean CCI score was 7.9 points: 7.6 points in men and 8.04 in women. Patients with STEMI had higher CCI score than NSTEMI patients (p<0.01): 8.1 points and 7.1 points, respectively. Patients who underwent PCI had lower CCI score (7.2 points) than patients in non-PCI group (8.2 points; p<0.05). Patients with STEMI in PCI and non-PCI groups had significant difference in CCI score (p<0.05): 7.4 and 8.4 points, respectively. Mean CCI score in patients who died in hospital was 8.5 while discharged patients had 7.6 points (p<0.01). In 6 months 13 patients (6.3%) died, their mean age was 84.9 years, mean CCI was 9 points, PCI was performed in 3 (23%) patients.

Conclusions. Elderly patients with ACS had high comorbidity level assessed by CCI score. Higher CCI score was associated with PCI non-performance in elderly patients. Elderly patients with STEMI had higher CCI score than patients with NSTEMI which was significantly associated with PCI non-performance. Patients who died in hospital or in 6 months after the ACS onset had higher CCI score than other elderly patients with ACS.

Non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes; clinical landscape, management strategy and in-hospital outcomes: an age perspective

Background

As the elderly represent a substantial proportion of medical care beneficiaries, and there is limited data about age disparity in emerging countries, this study sought to investigate the impact of age on the management in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS).

Results

Two hundred patients with NSTE-ACS enrolled prospectively, patients’ data, pharmacotherapy, management strategy as well timing to catheterization were documented. Patients grouped into ≥ 65 years versus < 65 years; 32.5% were ≥ 65-year-old. The older group presented as high GRACE risk (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) (67.7% versus 15.6%). Elderly patients were less likely to be referred for catheterization compared with younger counterparts (55.4% versus 76.3%, p = 0.003). Within low risk class patients, none of the elderly versus 9.33% of younger patients were catheterized within 2 h; in the same line, none of the elderly versus 16% of younger patients were catheterized within 24 h. Alternatively, at high risk class, 6.81% of the elderly and none of the younger patients were catheterized within 2 h. On the univariate analysis of variables to predict invasive strategy, presence of history of prior IHD, diabetes, absent in-hospital acute heart failure or atrial fibrillation/flutter, higher haemoglobin and lower creatinine levels predicted the use of invasive strategy, while on multivariate analysis, acute heart failure (95% CI − 0.38 to − 0.41, p = 0.01), lower haemoglobin (95% CI 0.002–0.07, p = 0.03), and atrial fibrillation/flutter (95% CI − 0.48 to − 0.02, p = 0.03) predicted conservative strategy. The elderly were more likely to have acute heart failure (32.3% versus 14.8%, p = 0.004), same as stroke (3.1% versus none, p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Less-invasive strategy used in the elderly with NSTE-ACS compared with younger counterparts, yet age was not a predictor of catheterization underuse on multivariate analysis. It is crucial to bridge the age gap in the healthcare system in setting of ACS management by grasping the attention of decision makers and emphasizing on the adherence of healthcare providers to the guidelines to improve cardiovascular care and outcomes.

Clinical Characteristics, Management Strategies and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the management strategies, temporal trends, and clinical outcomes of patients with a history of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We undertook a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample database from the United States (January 2004-September 2015), identified all inpatient MI admissions (7,250,768 records) and stratified according to history of CABG (group 1, CABG-naive [94%]; group 2, prior CABG [6%]).

RESULTS

Patients in group 2 were older, less likely to be female, had more comorbidities, and were more likely to present with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction compared with group 1. More patients underwent coronary angiography (68% vs 48%) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (44% vs 26%) in group 1 compared with group 2. Following multivariable logistic regression analyses, the adjusted odd ratio (OR) of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.005; P=.11), all-cause mortality (OR, 1; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04; P=.6) and major bleeding (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.03; P=.54) were similar to group 1. Lower adjusted odds of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.72; P<.001), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.53; P<.001), and acute ischemic stroke (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.86; P<.001) were observed in group 2 patients who underwent PCI compared with those managed medically without any increased risk of major bleeding (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.23; P=.26).

CONCLUSIONS

In this national cohort, MI patients with prior-CABG had a higher risk profile, but similar in-hospital adverse outcomes compared with CABG-naive patients. Prior-CABG patients who received PCI had better in-hospital clinical outcomes compared to those who received medical management.

Effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic strategies in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients represent a rapidly growing part of the population more susceptible to acute coronary syndromes and their complications. However, literature evidence is lacking in this clinical setting.

AIM

To describe the clinical features, in-hospital management and outcomes of “elderly” patients with myocardial infarction treated with antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation therapy.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients older than 80 years admitted to the Division of Cardiology of St. Andrea Hospital of Vercelli from January 2018 to December 2018 due to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Clinical and laboratory data were collected for each patient, as well as the prevalence of previous or in-hospital atrial fibrillation (AF). In-hospital management, consisting of an invasive or conservative strategy, and the anti-thrombotic therapy used are described. Outcomes evaluated at 1 year follow-up included an efficacy ischemic endpoint and a safety bleeding endpoint.

RESULTS

Of the 105 patients enrolled (mean age 83.9 ± 3.6 years, 52.3% males), 68 (64.8%) were admitted due to NSTEMI and 37 (35.2%) due to STEMI. Among the STEMI patients, 34 (91.9%) underwent coronary angiography and all of them were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); among the NSTEMI patients, 42 (61.8%) were assigned to an invasive strategy and 16 (38.1%) of them underwent a PCI. No significant difference between the groups was found concerning the prevalence of previous or in-hospital de-novo AF. 10.5% of the whole population received triple antithrombotic therapy and 9.5% single antiplatelet therapy plus oral anticoagulation (OAC), with no significant difference between the subgroups, although a higher number of STEMI patients received dual antiplatelet therapy without OAC as compared with NSTEMI patients. A low rate of in-hospital death (5.7%) and 1-year cardiovascular death (3.3%) was registered. Seven (7.8%) patients experienced major adverse cardiovascular events, while the rate of minor and major bleeding at 1-year follow-up was 10% and 2.2%, respectively, with no difference between NSTEMI and STEMI patients.

CONCLUSION

In this real-world study, a tailored evaluation of an invasive strategy and antithrombotic therapy resulted in a low rate of adverse events in elderly patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction.

Comorbidity burden and revascularization benefit in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the interaction between comorbidity burden and the benefits of in-hospital revascularization in elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 7211 patients aged ≥ 70 years from 11 Spanish NSTEACS registries. Six comorbidities were evaluated: diabetes, peripheral artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, renal failure, and anemia. A propensity score was estimated to enable an adjusted comparison of in-hospital revascularization and conservative management. The end point was 1-year all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

In total, 1090 patients (15%) died. The in-hospital revascularization rate was 60%. Revascularization was associated with lower 1-year mortality; the strength of the association was unchanged by the addition of comorbidities to the model (HR, 0.61; 95%CI, 0.53-0.69; P=.0001). However, the effects of revascularization were attenuated in patients with renal failure, peripheral artery disease, and chronic pulmonary disease (P for interaction=.004, .007, and .03, respectively) but were not modified by diabetes, anemia, and previous stroke (P=.74, .51, and .28, respectively). Revascularization benefits gradually decreased as the number of comorbidities increased (from a HR of 0.48 [95%CI, 0.39-0.61] with 0 comorbidities to 0.83 [95%CI, 0.62-1.12] with ≥ 5 comorbidities; omnibus P=.016). The results were similar for the propensity score model. The same findings were obtained when invasive management was considered the exposure variable.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital revascularization improves 1-year mortality regardless of comorbidities in elderly patients with NSTEACS. However, the revascularization benefit is progressively reduced with an increased comorbidity burden. Renal failure, peripheral artery disease, and chronic lung disease were the comorbidities with the most detrimental effects on revascularization benefits.

Impact of coronary angioplasty in elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

As treatment of coronary artery disease improved over the last years, management of elder patients remained a matter of debate since this age group has been underrepresented in most trials. The study aimed to evaluate a population of patients with ≥ 85 years old with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and compare the prognosis according to coronary revascularization execution.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 324 patients included in a national multicenter registry between October 2010 and October 2018, who underwent coronary angiography and had at least one stenosis ≥ 50%.

RESULTS

In this population, 73.1% of the patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and 26.9% of the patients underwent optimized medical treatment (OMT). The OMT group had more past history of diabetes, stroke and dementia. On coronary angiography, the PCI group used more often the femoral artery access and single-vessel lesions were also more common. Three-vessel disease was more common in the OMT group. During hospitalization, there were more major bleeding events and death in the PCI group. During the one-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Very old patients with NSTEMI submitted to OMT had more comorbidities and more three-vessel disease, factors that could have influenced the therapeutic decision. Patients undergoing PCI had more in-hospital major bleeding events and mortality, with no significant differences after one year.

Clinical Outcomes in Older Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND

Distinguishing the subgroup of older, comorbid patients presenting with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) who will benefit from percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains challenging. Identifying risk factors for major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) post PCI may help define this cohort. The objective of this study was to describe contemporary outcomes of older patients with NSTEACS undergoing PCI and identify pre-procedural risk factors for MACCE.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data for 1,875 patients aged ≥80 years entered in the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (VCOR) who underwent PCI for NSTEACS between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2017. MACCE was a composite outcome comprising 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding, target lesion revascularisation or target vessel revascularisation; in-hospital cardiogenic shock or stent thrombosis; and new requirement for dialysis. Patient demographic data and pre-procedural comorbidities were compared between the groups with and without a MACCE.

RESULTS

The rate of MACCE at 30 days was 8.0% (n=150). Thirty-day (30-day) mortality was 3.0% (n=57). Pre-procedural left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)<45% (OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.47-3.68; p<0.001) and eGFR≤30 mL/min/1.73m² or renal replacement therapy (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.27-3.46; p<0.01) were independent predictors of a MACCE.

CONCLUSIONS

Older patients presenting with NSTEACS who have left ventricular systolic dysfunction or renal impairment are at increased risk of MACCE post PCI. Randomised studies are required to determine if invasive management remains beneficial for these patents compared with medical therapy.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in the very elderly with NSTE-ACS: the randomized 80+ study

Objective: The treatment strategy in the very elderly with NSTE-ACS is debated, as they are often under-represented in clinical trials. The aim of this multicenter randomized controlled trial was to compare invasive and conservative strategies in the very elderly with NSTE-ACS.Methods: We randomly assigned patients ≥ 80 years of age with NSTE-ACS to an invasive strategy with coronary angiography and optimal medical treatment or a conservative strategy with only optimal medical treatment. The primary outcome was the combined endpoint of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Sample size was powered for a 50% reduction of event rate in MACCE with an invasive strategy. We used intention-to-treat analysis.Results: Altogether, 186 patients were included between 2009 and 2017. The study was terminated prematurely due to slow enrollment. At 12-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 31 (33.3%) of the invasive treatment group and 34 (36.6%) of the conservative treatment group, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.90 (95% CI 0.55‒1.46; p = 0.66) for the invasive group relative to the conservative group. The corresponding HR value for urgent revascularization was 0.29 (95% CI 0.10‒0.85; p = 0.02), 0.56 (95% CI 0.27‒1.18; p = 0.13) for myocardial infarction, 0.70 (95% CI 0.31‒1.58; p = 0.40) for all-cause mortality, 1.35 (95% CI 0.23‒7.98; p = 0.74) for stroke, and 1.62 (95% CI 0.67‒3.90; p = 0.28) for recurrent hospitalization for cardiac reasons.Conclusion: In the very elderly with NSTE-ACS, we did not find any significant difference in MACCE between invasive and conservative treatment groups at 12-month follow-up, possibly due to small sample size. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02126202.

Challenges and Controversies in the Management of ACS in Elderly Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Elderly patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) represent a challenging patient population. A high index of suspicion is needed for their diagnosis, as they are less likely to present with typical anginal symptoms compared to their younger counterparts.

RECENT FINDINGS

Disrupted coronary plaques with superimposed thrombosis are the predominant pathophysiology of ACS; however, an increased proportion of calcified nodules is encountered in elderly patients. Emergent reperfusion and revascularization remain the mainstay treatment for ST-elevation myocardial infarction or cardiogenic shock. In elderly patients with NSTE-ACS, a routine invasive strategy is generally superior to an ischemia-guided strategy, and the safety of an early invasive strategy has also been recently demonstrated. When treating elderly ACS patients with antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapies, close attention to co-morbidities, frailty and the balance of ischemia-bleeding risk should be undertaken, and medication doses should be carefully adjusted. Overall, elderly patients with ACS remain undertreated with evidence-based therapies, experience worse outcomes, and represent an opportunity for enhancing and mitigating healthcare disparities.

Impact of Different Geriatric Conditions on Choice of Therapy and In-Hospital Outcomes in Elderly Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION

The clinical benefit of invasive therapy in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unclear. Furthermore, the decision-making process to treat this growing patient group is also debatable. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between elderly ACS patients, the treatment choice and their in-hospital outcomes after non-ST-elevation (NSTE)-ACS in a consecutive series of patients >75 years of age.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients >75 years presenting with NSTE-ACS in our hospital between July 2017 and July 2018 were included during the first 2 days of hospital admission. Demographic data, prior medical history and present medical condition were documented. During day 0 and day 2, geriatric assessments (Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS], Barthel index, Charlson comorbidity index, "timed up and go" test [TUG], Mini-Mental Status Test [MMS], Geriatric Depression Scale [GDS], SF-36 for quality of life, instrumental activities of daily living [IADL], Killip-score, Grace-score and Euro-score) were conducted. After 6 months, patients were re-evaluated. In 106 patients (mean age 81.9±5.3 years, 57% male gender), 68 patients (64%) were treated interventionally, and 38 patients had conservative treatment (36%). Patients treated with intervention were significantly younger (80.9±4.7 years vs 83.5±6.0 years, p=0.015), had a lower rate of prior cerebral events (17.6% vs 26.3%; p=ns) and suffered more often from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (17.6% vs 34.2%; p=0.050). All other demographic variables were comparable between both groups. The composite clinical endpoint (death, re-infarction, bleeding) was reached in 7 patients (10.3%) of the invasive and in 2 patients (5.3%) of the conservative group. They were not significantly different between both groups. A frailty index, consisting of commonly used parameters of functional impairment in elderly patients, namely, MMS ≤2 at baseline, IADL ≤7, CFS ≥7 and age ≥85 years, significantly predicted conservative treatment.

CONCLUSION

Effective revascularization techniques are still underused in patients of older age in the case of ACS. For decision-making, geriatric tests alone may not predict treatment in those patients, but the combination of different tests may better predict treatment and perhaps the clinical outcomes in those patients. Furthermore, frail patients are at higher risk for not receiving guideline recommended therapy.