BACKGROUND: An increasing proportion of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are classified as elderly (aged ≥70 years). The glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor abciximab is known to reduce adverse outcomes in patients aged <70 years with high-risk ACS undergoing PCI, but conflicting findings relating to its effects in the elderly have been reported. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of abciximab in elderly high-risk ACS patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: From our dedicated PCI registry we identified 2068 ACS patients with high-risk lesions that were treated with PCI. Baseline data were collected prospectively. All-cause mortality, target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), and the combination of these were primary study endpoints. All endpoints within 1 year after PCI were registered and validated. The population was subsequently stratified according to age and use of abciximab. RESULTS: Elderly patients constituted 42% of the total population. They presented with more co-morbidities, were less frequently treated with abciximab and had a higher risk of reaching the combined endpoint and higher all-cause mortality than younger patients. The age/abciximab stratified analysis revealed no effect of abciximab on any of the endpoints in elderly patients (combined endpoint: no abciximab 22.6% vs abciximab 23.4%, p=0.85; all-cause mortality: no abciximab 15.4% vs abciximab 15.9%, p=0.91; TVR: no abciximab 3.4% vs abciximab 5.5%, p=0.21; MI: no abciximab 7.0% vs abciximab 8.5%, p=0.54), whereas all-cause mortality and the risk of reaching the combined endpoint were significantly reduced in younger patients (combined endpoint: no abciximab 14.0% vs abciximab 9.4%, p=0.03; all-cause mortality: no abciximab 4.5% vs abciximab 1.7%, p=0.02; TVR: no abciximab 5.5% vs abciximab 4.3%, p=0.39; MI: no abciximab 7.2% vs abciximab 6.6%, p=0.80). These findings were confirmed in our adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this large observational study we found no benefit of abciximab treatment in elderly high-risk ACS patients who underwent PCI. These findings should be taken into consideration when deciding on the treatment strategy for elderly ACS patients undergoing PCI.
BACKGROUND: An increasing proportion of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are classified as elderly (aged ≥70 years). The glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor abciximab is known to reduce adverse outcomes in patients aged <70 years with high-risk ACS undergoing PCI, but conflicting findings relating to its effects in the elderly have been reported. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of abciximab in elderly high-risk ACS patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: From our dedicated PCI registry we identified 2068 ACS patients with high-risk lesions that were treated with PCI. Baseline data were collected prospectively. All-cause mortality, target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), and the combination of these were primary study endpoints. All endpoints within 1 year after PCI were registered and validated. The population was subsequently stratified according to age and use of abciximab. RESULTS: Elderly patients constituted 42% of the total population. They presented with more co-morbidities, were less frequently treated with abciximab and had a higher risk of reaching the combined endpoint and higher all-cause mortality than younger patients. The age/abciximab stratified analysis revealed no effect of abciximab on any of the endpoints in elderly patients (combined endpoint: no abciximab 22.6% vs abciximab 23.4%, p=0.85; all-cause mortality: no abciximab 15.4% vs abciximab 15.9%, p=0.91; TVR: no abciximab 3.4% vs abciximab 5.5%, p=0.21; MI: no abciximab 7.0% vs abciximab 8.5%, p=0.54), whereas all-cause mortality and the risk of reaching the combined endpoint were significantly reduced in younger patients (combined endpoint: no abciximab 14.0% vs abciximab 9.4%, p=0.03; all-cause mortality: no abciximab 4.5% vs abciximab 1.7%, p=0.02; TVR: no abciximab 5.5% vs abciximab 4.3%, p=0.39; MI: no abciximab 7.2% vs abciximab 6.6%, p=0.80). These findings were confirmed in our adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this large observational study we found no benefit of abciximab treatment in elderly high-risk ACS patients who underwent PCI. These findings should be taken into consideration when deciding on the treatment strategy for elderly ACS patients undergoing PCI.
Authors: Alvaro Avezum; Marcia Makdisse; Frederick Spencer; Joel M Gore; Keith A A Fox; Gilles Montalescot; Kim A Eagle; Kami White; Rajendra H Mehta; Elias Knobel; Jean-Philippe Collet Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Adnan Kastrati; Julinda Mehilli; Franz-Josef Neumann; Franz Dotzer; Jurriën ten Berg; Hildegard Bollwein; Isolde Graf; Maryam Ibrahim; Jürgen Pache; Melchior Seyfarth; Helmut Schühlen; Josef Dirschinger; Peter B Berger; Albert Schömig Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-03-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Giulio Guagliumi; Gregg W Stone; David A Cox; Thomas Stuckey; James E Tcheng; Mark Turco; Giuseppe Musumeci; John J Griffin; Alexandra J Lansky; Roxana Mehran; Cindy L Grines; Eulogio Garcia Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-09-07 Impact factor: 29.690