Long-Term Survival after Invasive or Conservative Strategy in Elderly Patients with non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Prospective Cohort Study

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.

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.

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.

The role of late reperfusion in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a real-world retrospective cohort study

Background

Early reperfusion of the coronary artery has become the first choice for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). How to deal with patients who miss the time window for early reperfusion is still controversial. Based on real-world data, this study was conducted to explore whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has an advantage over standard drug therapy in patients who miss the optimal treatment window.

Methods

Consecutive patients who were diagnosed with STEMI and met the inclusion criteria between 2009 and 2018 in our center were retrospectively included in this cohort study. The primary endpoint events were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including heart failure, sudden cardiac death, malignant arrhythmia, thrombi and bleeding events during the period of admission. Secondary endpoint events were components of MACEs. At the same time, we also evaluated angina pectoris at admission and discharge through Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) grading.

Results

This study enrolled 417 STEMI patients and divided them into four groups (PCI < 3 days, 14.87%; 3 days<PCI < 7 days, 21.104%; PCI > 7 days, 34.29%; MED, 29.74%). During the period of admission, MACEs occurred in 52 cases. The incidence of MACEs was 11.29, 7.95, 4.20 and 25.81% in the four respective groups (p < 0.0001). The MED group had higher rates of MACEs (OR = 3.074; 95% CI 0.1.116–8.469, p = 0.03) and cardiac death (OR = 3.027; 95% CI 1.121–8.169, p = 0.029) compared to the PCI group. Although both treatments were effective in improving CCS grade at discharge, the PCI group improved more significantly (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

In the real world, delayed PCI can be more effective in patients with angina symptoms at discharge and reduce the incidence of MACEs and cardiac death during hospitalization. The timing of intervention was independent of the occurrence of MACEs during hospitalization and of improvement in symptoms.