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

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Summary data were obtained from 11 RCTs, including previously unpublished subgroup outcomes of nine trials, comprising 897 patients with previous CABG (477 routine invasive, 420 conservative/selective invasive) followed up for a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.

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.

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.

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.

Frailty in acute coronary syndromes. A systematic review and narrative synthesis of frailty assessment tools and interventions from randomised controlled trials

AIM

We aimed to review all randomised controlled trial (RCT) data to explore optimal identification and treatment strategies of frail patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS).

METHODS

The protocol was preregistered (PROSPERO - CRD42021250235). We performed a systematic review including RCT's that 1; used at least one frailty assessment tool to assess frailty and its impact on outcomes in patients diagnosed with ACS and 2; used at least one intervention where change in frailty was measured in patients diagnosed with ACS. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched on the 1st April 2021 and updated on 4th July 2023. Owing to low search output results are presented as a narrative synthesis of available evidence.

RESULTS

A single RCT used a frailty assessment tool. A single RCT specifically targeted frailty with their intervention. This precluded further quantitative analysis. There was indication of selection bias against frail participants, and a signal of value for physical activity measurement in frail ACS patients. There was a high level of uncertainty and low level of robustness of this evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from RCT's alone is inadequate in answering the reviews question. Future RCT's need to address ways to incorporate frail participants, whilst mitigating selection biases. Physical performance aspects of the frailty syndrome appear to be high yield modifiable targets that improve outcomes. Intervention trials should consider using change in frailty status as an outcome measure. Any trials that include frail participants should present data specifically attributable to this group.

Long-Term Outcomes of Invasive vs Conservative Strategies for Older Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND

Non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is a frequent cause of hospital admission in older people, but clinical trials targeting this population are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

The After Eighty Study assessed the effect of an invasive vs a conservative treatment strategy in a very old population with NSTE-ACS.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2014, the investigators randomized 457 patients with NSTE-ACS aged ≥80 years (mean age 85 years) to an invasive strategy involving early coronary angiography with immediate evaluation for revascularization and optimal medical therapy or to a conservative strategy (ie, optimal medical therapy). The primary endpoint was a composite of myocardial infarction, need for urgent revascularization, stroke, and death. The long-term outcomes are presented.

RESULTS

After a median follow up of 5.3 years, the invasive strategy was superior to the conservative strategy in the reduction of the primary endpoint (incidence rate ratio: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.63-0.93; P = 0.0057). The invasive strategy demonstrated a significant gain in event-free survival of 276 days (95% CI: 151-400 days; P = 0.0001) at 5 years and 337 days (95% CI: 123-550 days; P = 0.0001) at 10 years. These results were consistent across subgroups of patients with respect to major cardiovascular prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients aged ≥80 years with NSTE-ACS, the invasive strategy was superior to the conservative strategy in the reduction of composite events and demonstrated a significant gain in event-free survival. (The After Eighty Study: a randomized controlled trial; NCT01255540).

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.

Invasive Versus Conservative Management of NSTEMI Patients Aged ≥ 75 Years

BACKGROUND

The efficiency of invasive management in older patients (≥75 years) with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains ambiguous.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficiency of invasive management in older patients with NSTEMI based on meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).

METHODS

Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies were included. The primary outcomes were all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding. Pooled odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Five RCTs and 22 observational studies with 1017374 patients were included. Based on RCT and TSA results, invasive management was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.40-0.65; I2=0%), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.49-0.77; I2=27.0%), and revascularization (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.15-0.55; I2=5.3%) compared with conservative management. Pooling results from RCTs and observational studies with multivariable adjustment showed consistently lower risks of all-cause death (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.50-0.64; I2=86.4%), myocardial infarction (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.56-0.71; I2=0%), stroke (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.51-0.69; I2=0%), and MACE (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.54-0.76; I2=43.4%). The better prognosis associated with invasive management was also observed in real-world scenarios. However, for patients aged ≥85 years, invasive management may increase the risk of major bleeding (OR: 2.68; 95% CI: 1.12-6.42; I2=0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Invasive management was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction, MACE, and revascularization in older patients with NSTEMI, yet it may increase the risk of major bleeding in patients aged ≥85 years.

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.

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.

Age and Sex Differences and Temporal Trends in the Use of Invasive and Noninvasive Procedures in Patients Hospitalized With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background

Few studies have examined age and sex differences in the receipt of cardiac diagnostic and interventional procedures in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction and trends in these possible differences during recent years.

Methods and Results

Data from patients hospitalized with a first acute myocardial infarction at the major medical centers in the Worcester, Massachusetts, metropolitan area were utilized for this study. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine age (<55, 55–64, 65–74, and ≥75 years) and sex differences in the receipt of echocardiography, exercise stress testing, coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary interventions, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and trends in the use of those procedures during patients' acute hospitalization, between 2005 and 2018, while adjusting for important confounding factors. The study population consisted of 1681 men and 1154 women with an initial acute myocardial infarction who were hospitalized on an approximate biennial basis between 2005 and 2018. A smaller proportion of women underwent cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, while there were no sex differences in the receipt of echocardiography and exercise stress testing. Patients aged ≥75 years were less likely to undergo cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, but were more likely to receive echocardiography compared with younger patients. Between 2005 and 2018, the use of echocardiography and coronary artery bypass graft surgery nonsignificantly increased among all age groups and both sexes, while the use of cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention increased nonsignificantly faster in women and older patients.

Conclusions

We observed a continued lower receipt of invasive cardiac procedures in women and patients aged ≥75 years with acute myocardial infarction, but age and sex gaps associated with these procedures have narrowed during recent years.

Routine Invasive Strategy in Elderly Patients with Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Invasive treatment with coronary angiography is preferred approach for patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) compared to medical therapy alone. The results from the randomized clinical trials (RCT) that compared the invasive treatment strategy vs. conservative approach in the elderly (≥75 years) with NSTE-ACS has been inconsistent.

AIM

 To compare invasive and conservative strategies in the elderly (>75 years) with NSTE-ACS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL Register and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through July 10, 2021) for RCTs comparing invasive and conservative strategies in the elderly with NSTE-ACS. We used random-effects model to calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval(CI). A total of 6 RCT including 2,323 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The median follow-up duration was 13.5 months. When invasive approach was compared to conservative strategy, it showed no difference in all-cause mortality in patients aged ≥75 years with NSTE-ACS (RR of 0.85; 95% CI 0.70-1.04; P = 0.12; I² = 0%). There was significant reduction in MI (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.49 0.71; P < 0.001; I² = 0%) and unplanned revascularization (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.53, P <0.001, I² = 0%). Invasive strategy was associated with higher risk of major bleeding when compared to conservative treatment (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.21-3.74, P=0.009, I² = 0%). Comparison of both strategies showed no significant difference in stroke (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.38-1.46, P = 0.40; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSION

This updated meta-analysis suggests that in elderly patients (>75 years) with NSTE-ACS, a routine invasive strategy is associated with a reduction in MI and revascularization, while increasing the risk of major bleeding, but without difference in all-cause mortality and stroke.

Invasive versus conservative strategy in the very elderly with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

To investigate the optimal treatment strategy in patients older than 80 years with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).

METHODS

All published randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on comparisons between invasive and conservative strategies for patients aged 80 years or older with NSTE-ACS were identified. The literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the ISI Web of Science, from their establishment to July 2021 with no language restriction. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes were calculated.

RESULTS

Three RCTs involving a total of 893 cases met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the conservative group, the invasive strategy could significantly improve the incidence rate of composite endpoint (I²  = 21.9%; RR 0.727, 95% CI 0.619 to 0.855, P < 0.001), recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) (I²  = 0.0%; RR 0.585, 95% CI 0.441 to 0.776, P < 0.001) and revascularization (I²  = 0.0%; RR 0.239, 95% CI 0.126 to 0.455, P < 0.001). However, no benefits were observed on outcomes of all-cause death (I²  = 0.0%; RR 0.888, 95% CI 0.681 to 1.160, P = 0.384), cardiac death (I²  = 0.0%; RR 0.769, 95% CI 0.412 to 1.433, P = 0.408) and stroke (I²  = 0.0%; RR 0.778, 95% CI 0.392 to 1.543, P = 0.473). The major bleeding events were comparable between the two groups (I²  = 0.0%; RR 1.582, 95% CI 0.622 to 4.025, P = 0.336).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with a conservative strategy, the invasive treatment could reduce the incidence of composite endpoint, recurrent MI, and revascularization in the very elderly with NSTE-ACS. However, no benefits were observed on mortality. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2021; ••: ••-••.