M Justin Zaman1, Susan Stirling2, Lee Shepstone2, Alisdair Ryding3, Marcus Flather2, Max Bachmann2, Phyo Kyaw Myint4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine,James Paget University Hospital, Lowestoft Road, Gorleston-on-Sea, Norfolk NR31 6LA, UK Department of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK justinzaman@nhs.net. 2. Department of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 3. Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital and James Paget University Hospital, Norwich, UK. 4. Academic Centre for Applied Clinical and Translational Research into Ageing, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: Older people increasingly constitute a large proportion of the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) population. We examined the relationship of age with receipt of more intensive management and secondary prevention medicine. Then, the comparative association of intensive management (reperfusion/angiography) over a conservative strategy on time to death was investigated by age. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using data from 155 818 patients in the national registry for ACS in England and Wales [the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP)], we found that older patients were incrementally less likely to receive secondary prevention medicines and intensive management for both ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). In STEMI patients ≥85 years, 55% received reperfusion compared with 84% in those aged 18 to <65 [odds ratio 0.22 (95% CI 0.21, 0.24)]. Not receiving intensive management was associated with worse survival [mean follow-up 2.29 years (SD 1.42)] in all age groups (adjusted for sex, cardiovascular risk factors, co-morbidities, healthcare factors, and case severity), but there was an incremental reduction in survival benefit from intensive management with increasing age. In STEMI patients aged 18-64, 65-74, 75-84, and ≥85, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality comparing conservative treatment to intensive management were 1.98 (1.78, 2.19), 1.65 (1.51, 1.80), 1.62 (1.52, 1.72), and 1.36 (1.27, 1.47), respectively. In NSTEMI patients, the respective HRs were 4.37 (4.00, 4.78), 3.76 (3.54, 3.99), 2.79 (2.67, 2.91), and 1.90 (1.77, 2.04). CONCLUSION: We found an incremental reduction in the use of evidence-based therapies with increasing age using a national ACS registry cohort. While survival benefit from more intensive management reduced with older age, better survival was associated with intensive management at all ages highlighting the requirement to improve standard of care in older patients with ACS. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Older people increasingly constitute a large proportion of the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) population. We examined the relationship of age with receipt of more intensive management and secondary prevention medicine. Then, the comparative association of intensive management (reperfusion/angiography) over a conservative strategy on time to death was investigated by age. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using data from 155 818 patients in the national registry for ACS in England and Wales [the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP)], we found that older patients were incrementally less likely to receive secondary prevention medicines and intensive management for both ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). In STEMI patients ≥85 years, 55% received reperfusion compared with 84% in those aged 18 to <65 [odds ratio 0.22 (95% CI 0.21, 0.24)]. Not receiving intensive management was associated with worse survival [mean follow-up 2.29 years (SD 1.42)] in all age groups (adjusted for sex, cardiovascular risk factors, co-morbidities, healthcare factors, and case severity), but there was an incremental reduction in survival benefit from intensive management with increasing age. In STEMI patients aged 18-64, 65-74, 75-84, and ≥85, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality comparing conservative treatment to intensive management were 1.98 (1.78, 2.19), 1.65 (1.51, 1.80), 1.62 (1.52, 1.72), and 1.36 (1.27, 1.47), respectively. In NSTEMI patients, the respective HRs were 4.37 (4.00, 4.78), 3.76 (3.54, 3.99), 2.79 (2.67, 2.91), and 1.90 (1.77, 2.04). CONCLUSION: We found an incremental reduction in the use of evidence-based therapies with increasing age using a national ACS registry cohort. While survival benefit from more intensive management reduced with older age, better survival was associated with intensive management at all ages highlighting the requirement to improve standard of care in older patients with ACS. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Mayra Tisminetzky; Nathaniel Erskine; Han-Yang Chen; Joel Gore; Jerry Gurwitz; Jorge Yarzebski; Samuel Joffe; Peter Shaw; Robert Goldberg Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Niema Kazem; Felix Hofer; Lorenz Koller; Andreas Hammer; Thomas M Hofbauer; Christian Hengstenberg; Alexander Niessner; Patrick Sulzgruber Journal: Eur Heart J Open Date: 2021-10-27
Authors: Greg B Mills; Hanna Ratcovich; Jennifer Adams-Hall; Benjamin Beska; Emma Kirkup; Daniell E Raharjo; Murugapathy Veerasamy; Chris Wilkinson; Vijay Kunadian Journal: Eur Heart J Open Date: 2021-12-17
Authors: Matheus A Costa; Ana E Paiva; Julia P Andreotti; Marcus V Cardoso; Carlos D Cardoso; Akiva Mintz; Alexander Birbrair Journal: J Mol Cell Cardiol Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 5.000