Time for a New Approach to Studying Older People with Ischemic Heart Disease

Optimal anti-platelet therapy for older patients with acute coronary syndrome: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials comprising 59,284 older patients

The aim of this study was to identify the optimal anti-platelet therapy in older acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with a mean age ≥ 60 years by comparing the efficacy and safety of different anti-platelet therapies. The selection of antiplatelet therapy in older patients with ACS is a clinical challenge. Numerous evidences indicate that the de-escalation of dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy may reduce bleeding risk without increasing thrombotic events. However, there is a lack of systematic reviews and optimal strategy analysis regarding older ACS patients. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-platelet therapy in older ACS patients were identified. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included all death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, and trial-defined major bleeding. Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. Treatments were ranked on posterior probability. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using Bayesian network meta-analysis. A total of 12 RCTs including 59,284 older ACS patients treated with five anti-platelet strategies were included. Ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months DAPT was comparable to the other strategies (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32-1.6) in terms of MACE risk. Additionally, P score analysis and SUCRA Bayesian analysis showed that it was the most beneficial treatment for all deaths, cardiovascular death and revascularization. For safety, although there was no significant difference in direct comparisons, both SUCRA Bayesian (0.806) and P score (0.519) analysis suggested that ticagrelor monotherapy was the safest strategy. The current evidence demonstrated that ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months DAPT may be a promising approach for achieving a more favorable balance between risk and benefit for older ACS patients, with a relatively low bleeding risk and without an increased risk of MACE events. Moreover, it remains the preferred option for clinical outcomes such as all death, CV death and revascularization. Further high-quality and long-term studies are required to validate anti-platelet therapies among older ACS patients.

Variation in propofol induction doses administered to surgical patients over age 65

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Advanced age is associated with increased susceptibility to acute adverse effects of propofol. The present study aimed to describe patterns of propofol dosing for induction of general anesthesia before endotracheal intubation in a nationwide sample of older adults presenting for surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study using the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group data set.

SETTING

Thirty-six institutions across the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 350,766 patients aged over 65 years who received propofol for general anesthetic induction and endotracheal intubation between 2014 and 2018.

INTERVENTION

None.

MEASUREMENTS

Total induction bolus dose of propofol administered.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) weight-adjusted propofol dose was 1.7 (0.6) mg/kg. The mean prevalent propofol induction dose exceeded the upper bound of what has been described as the typical geriatric dose requirement across every age category examined. The percent of patients receiving propofol induction doses above the described typical geriatric range was 64.8% (95% CI 64.6-65.0), varying from 73.8% among patients aged 65-69 to 45.8% among patients aged 80 and older.

CONCLUSION

The present study of a large multicenter cohort demonstrates that prevalent propofol dosing commonly falls above the published typically required dose range for patients aged ≥65 in nationwide anesthetic practice. Widespread variability in induction dose administration remains incompletely explained by known patient variables. The nature and clinical consequences of these unexplained dosing decisions remain important topics for further study. Observed discordance between expected and actual induction dosing raises the question of whether there should be reconsideration of widespread provider practice or, alternatively, whether what is published as the typical propofol induction dose range should be revisited.

Patient and Cardiologist Perspectives on Shared Decision Making in the Treatment of Older Adults Hospitalized for Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background. Medical and interventional therapies for older adults with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) reduce mortality and improve outcomes in selected patients, but there are also risks associated with treatments. Shared decision making (SDM) may be useful in the management of such patients, but to date, patients' and cardiologists' perspectives on SDM in the setting of AMI remain poorly understood. Accordingly, we performed a qualitative study eliciting patients' and cardiologists' perceptions of SDM in this scenario. Methods. We conducted 20 in-depth, semistructured interviews with older patients (age ≥70) post-AMI and 20 interviews with cardiologists. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using ATLAS.ti. Two investigators independently coded transcripts using the constant comparative method, and an integrative, team-based process was used to identify themes. Results. Six major themes emerged: 1) patients felt their only choice was to undergo an invasive procedure; 2) patients placed a high level of trust and gratitude toward physicians; 3) patients wanted to be more informed about the procedures they underwent; 4) for cardiologists, patients' age was not a major contraindication to intervention, while cognitive impairment and functional limitation were; 5) while cardiologists intuitively understood the concept of SDM, interpretations varied; and 6) cardiologists considered SDM to be useful in the setting of non-ST elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) but not ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI). Conclusions. Patients viewed intervention as "the only choice," whereas cardiologists saw a need for balancing risks and benefits in treating older adults post-NSTEMI. This discrepancy implies there is room to improve communication of risks and benefits to older patients. A decision aid informed by the needs of older adults could help to better convey patient-specific risk and increase choice awareness.

Improving Care Using a Bidirectional Geriatric Cardiology Consultative Conference

More than 13 million persons in the United States aged 65 and older have cardiovascular disease (CVD), and this population is expected to increase exponentially over the next several decades. In the absence of clinical studies that would inform how best to manage this population, there is an urgent need for collaborative, thoughtful approaches to their care. Although cardiologists are traditionally regarded as leaders in the care of older adults with CVD, these individuals have multiple comorbidities, physiological differences, and distinct goals of care than younger patients that require a specialized geriatric lens. Thus, collaboration is needed between geriatricians, cardiologists, and other specialists to address the unique needs of this growing population. Accordingly, clinicians at New York University Langone Health and School of Medicine established a monthly Geriatric Cardiology Conference to foster an integrative approach to the care of older adults with CVD by uniting specialists across disciplines to collaborate on treatment strategies. At each conference, an active case is discussed and analyzed in detail, and a consensus is reached among participants regarding optimal treatment strategies. The conference attracts faculty and trainees at multiple levels from geriatrics, cardiology, and cardiothoracic surgery. The model may serve as a paradigm for other institutions moving towards geriatric-informed care of older adults with CVD.