van Wyk GW, Berkovsky S, Fraile Navarro D, Coiera E. Comparing health outcomes between coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review.
Eur Geriatr Med 2022;
13:1057-1069. [PMID:
35908241 PMCID:
PMC9553773 DOI:
10.1007/s41999-022-00667-9]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2022] [Accepted: 06/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse