Invasive Versus Conservative Strategy in Frail Patients With NSTEMI: The MOSCA-FRAIL Clinical Trial Study Design

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.

The influence of pressure injury risk on the association between left ventricular ejection fraction and all-cause mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction 80 years or older

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate whether the pressure injury risk mediates the association of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with all-cause death in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) aged 80 years or older.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 677 patients with AMI aged 80 years or older from a tertiary-level hospital. Pressure injury risk was assessed using the Braden scale at admission, and three risk groups (low/minimal, intermediate, high) were defined according to the overall score of six different variables. LVEF was measured during the index hospitalization for AMI. All-cause death after hospital discharge was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up period of 1,176 d (interquartile range [IQR], 722-1,900 d), 226 (33.4%) patients died. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that reduced LVEF was associated with an increased risk of all-cause death only in the high-risk group of pressure injury (adjusted hazard ratios [HR]=1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-3.20; P=0.040), but not in the low/minimal- (adjusted HR=1.29, 95%CI: 0.80-2.11; P=0.299) or intermediate-risk groups (adjusted HR=1.14, 95%CI: 0.65-2.02; P=0.651). Significant interactions were detected between pressure injury risk and LVEF (adjusted P=0.003). The cubic spline with hazard ratio plot revealed a distinct shaped curve relation between LVEF and all-cause death among different pressure injury risk groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In older patients with AMI, the risk of pressure injury mediated the association between LVEF and all-cause death. The classification of older patients for both therapy and prognosis assessment appears to be improved by the incorporation of pressure injury risk assessment into AMI care management.

Invasive versus Conservative Treatment Approach among Older Adult Patients Admitted with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred treatment strategy for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); however, its efficacy remains unclear in very older adult patients with STEMI.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center observational study included 530 patients aged >75 years admitted to Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center with a diagnosis of acute STEMI. Primary PCI was performed for patients with symptoms ≤12 hours in duration, while the other patients were conservatively treated. We evaluated 30-day mortality and complications occurring during hospitalization based on data from patient records.

RESULTS

Among the study patients, only 28/530 (5%) were conservatively treated. In-hospital complications, including the use of inotropes or intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation and the need for mechanical ventilation, did not differ significantly between the groups. The only parameter that showed a trend toward significance was the incidence of heart failure during hospitalization (p=0.042). The risk for 30-day mortality was substantially higher in the conservative treatment group than in the invasive treatment group (27% vs. 10%; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggested that despite concerns regarding the safety of the primary PCI strategy in the older adult STEMI population, this treatment strategy was associated with a survival benefit.

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.

Prognosis Impact of Diabetes in Elderly Women and Men with Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

Few studies have addressed to date the interaction between sex and diabetes mellitus (DM) in the prognosis of elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS). Our aim was to address the role of DM in the prognosis of non-selected elderly patients with NSTEACS according to sex. A retrospective analysis from 11 Spanish NSTEACS registries was conducted, including patients aged ≥70 years. The primary end point was one-year all-cause mortality. A total of 7211 patients were included, 2,770 (38.4%) were women, and 39.9% had DM. Compared with the men, the women were older (79.95 ± 5.75 vs. 78.45 ± 5.43 years, p < 0.001) and more often had a history of hypertension (77% vs. 83.1%, p < 0.01). Anemia and chronic kidney disease were both more common in women. On the other hand, they less frequently had a prior history of arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease or comorbidities such as peripheral artery disease and chronic pulmonary disease. Women showed a worse clinical profile on admission, though an invasive approach and in-hospital revascularization were both more often performed in men (p < 0.001). At a one-year follow-up, 1090 patients (15%) had died, without a difference between sexes. Male sex was an independent predictor of mortality (HR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32, p = 0.035), and there was a significant interaction between sex and DM (p = 0.002). DM was strongly associated with mortality in women (HR: 1.45, 95% CI = 1.18–1.78; p < 0.001), but not in men (HR: 0.98, 95% CI = 0.84–1.14; p = 0.787). In conclusion, DM is associated with mortality in older women with NSTEACS, but not in men.

Frailty Scales for Prognosis Assessment of Older Adult Patients after Acute Myocardial Infarction

We aimed to compare the prognostic value of two different measures, the Fried's Frailty Scale (FFS) and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), following myocardial infarction (MI). We included 150 patients ≥ 70 years admitted from AMI. Frailty was evaluated on the day before discharge. The primary endpoint was number of days alive and out of hospital (DAOH) during the first 800 days. Secondary endpoints were mortality and a composite of mortality and reinfarction. Frailty was diagnosed in 58% and 34% of patients using the FFS and CFS scales, respectively. During the first 800 days 34 deaths and 137 admissions occurred. The number of DAOH decreased significantly with increasing scores of both FFS (p < 0.001) and CFS (p = 0.049). In multivariate analysis, only the highest scores (FFS = 5, CFS ≥ 6) were independently associated with fewer DAOH. At a median follow-up of 946 days, frailty assessed both by FFS and CFS was independently associated with death and MI (HR = 2.70 95%CI = 1.32-5.51 p = 0.001; HR = 2.01 95%CI = 1.1-3.66 p = 0.023, respectively), whereas all-cause mortality was only associated with FFS (HR = 1.51 95%CI = 1.08-2.10 p = 0.015). Frailty by FFS or CFS is independently associated with shorter number DAOH post-MI. Likewise, frailty assessed by either scale is associated with a higher rate of death and reinfarction, whereas FFS outperforms CFS for mortality prediction.

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.

Prospective cohort study of elderly patients with coronary artery disease: impact of frailty on quality of life and outcome

Background

Elderly, frail patients are often excluded from clinical trials so there is lack of data regarding optimal management when they present with symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD).

Objective

The aim of this observational study was to evaluate an unselected elderly population with CAD for the occurrence of frailty, and its association with quality of life (QoL) and clinical outcomes.

Methods

Consecutive patients aged ≥80 years presenting with CAD were prospectively assessed for frailty (Fried frailty phenotype (FFP), Edmonton frailty scale (EFS)), QoL (Short form survey (SF-12)) and comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)). Patients were re-assessed at 4 months to determine any change in frailty and QoL status as well as the clinical outcome.

Results

One hundred fifty consecutive patients with symptomatic CAD were recruited in the study. The mean age was 83.7±3.2 years, 99 (66.0%) were men. The clinical presentation was stable angina in 68 (45.3%), the remainder admitted with an acute coronary syndrome including 21 (14.0%) with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Frailty was present in 28% and 26% by FFP and EFS, respectively, and was associated with a significantly higher CCI (7.5±2.4 in frail, 6.2±2.2 in prefrail, 5.9±1.6 in those without frailty, p=0.005). FFP was significantly related to the physical composite score for QoL, while EFS was significantly related to the mental composite score for QoL (p=0.003). Treatment was determined by the cardiologist: percutaneous coronary intervention in 51 (34%), coronary artery bypass graft surgery in 15 (10%) and medical therapy in 84 (56%). At 4 months, 14 (9.3%) had died. Frail participants had the lowest survival. Cardiovascular symptom status and the mental composite score of QoL significantly improved (52.7±11.5 at baseline vs 55.1±10.6 at follow-up, p=0.04). However, overall frailty status did not significantly change, nor the physical health composite score of QoL (37.2±11.0 at baseline vs 38.5±11.3 at follow-up, p=0.27).

Conclusions

In patients referred to hospital with CAD, frailty is associated with impaired QoL and a high coexistence of comorbidities. Following cardiac treatment, patients had improvement in cardiovascular symptoms and mental component of QoL.

Challenges in the management of older patients with acute coronary syndromes in the COVID-19 pandemic

Ischaemic heart disease (IHD), in particular acute coronary syndrome (ACS), comprising ST-elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and unstable angina, is the leading cause of death worldwide. Age is a major predictor of adverse outcome following ACS. COVID-19 infection seems to escalate the risk in older patients with heart disease. Increasing odds of in-hospital death is associated with older age following COVID-19 infection. Importantly, it seems older patients with comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease (CVD), in particular IHD, diabetes and hypertension, are at the highest risk of mortality following COVID-19 infection. The evidence is sparse on the optimal care of older patients with ACS with lack of robust randomised controlled trials. In this setting, with the serious threat imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of rapidly evolving knowledge with much unknown, it is important to weigh the risks and benefits of treatment strategies offered to older patients. In cases where risks outweigh the benefits, it might not be an unreasonable option to treat such patients with a conservative or a palliative approach. Further evidence to elucidate whether invasive management is beneficial in older patients with ACS is required out-with the COVID-19 pandemic. Though it is hoped that the actual acute phase of COVID-19 infection will be short lived, it is vital that important clinical research is continued, given the long-term benefits of ongoing clinical research for patients with long-term conditions, including CVD. This review aimed to evaluate the challenges and the management strategies in the care of older patients presenting with ACS in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Invasive strategy and frailty in very elderly patients with acute coronary syndromes

AIMS

Current guidelines recommend an early invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS). The role of an invasive strategy in frail elderly patients remains controversial. The aim of this substudy was to assess the impact of an invasive strategy on outcomes according to the degree of frailty in these patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The LONGEVO-SCA registry included unselected NSTEACS patients aged ≥80 years. A geriatric assessment, including frailty, was performed during hospitalisation. During the admission, we evaluated the impact of an invasive strategy on the incidence of cardiac death, reinfarction or new revascularisation at six months. From 531 patients included, 145 (27.3%) were frail. Mean age was 84.3 years. Most patients underwent an invasive strategy (407/531, 76.6%). Patients undergoing an invasive strategy were younger and had a lower proportion of frailty (23.3% vs. 40.3%, p<0.001). The incidence of cardiac events was more common in patients managed conservatively, after adjusting for confounding factors (sub-hazard ratio [sHR] 2.32, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26-4.29, p=0.007). This association remained significant in non-frail patients (sHR 3.85, 95% CI: 2.13-6.95, p=0.001), but was not significant in patients with established frailty criteria (sHR 1.40, 95% CI: 0.72-2.75, p=0.325). The interaction invasive strategy-frailty was significant (p=0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

An invasive strategy was independently associated with better outcomes in very elderly patients with NSTEACS. This association was different according to frailty status.