| Literature DB >> 31700513 |
Yong-Gang Sui1, Si-Yong Teng1, Jie Qian1, Yuan Wu1, Ke-Fei Dou1, Yi-Da Tang1, Shu-Bin Qiao1, Yong-Jian Wu1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the very elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) will benefit from an invasive strategy versus a conservative strategy.Entities:
Keywords: Conservative strategy; Death; Invasive strategy; Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
Year: 2019 PMID: 31700513 PMCID: PMC6828601 DOI: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2019.10.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Geriatr Cardiol ISSN: 1671-5411 Impact factor: 3.327
Baseline characteristics.
| Characteristic | Total ( | Conservative strategy group ( | Invasive strategy group ( | |
| Age | 0.0032 | |||
| < 85 yrs | 137 (72.1%) | 41 (59.4%) | 96 (79.3%) | |
| ≥ 85 yrs | 53 (27.9%) | 28 (40.6%) | 25 (20.7%) | |
| Sex | 0.3392 | |||
| Male | 107 (56.3%) | 42 (60.9%) | 65 (53.7%) | |
| Female | 83 (43.7%) | 27 (39.1%) | 56 (46.3%) | |
| BMI | 23.7 ± 4.5 | 23.8 ± 4.3 | 23.7 ± 4.7 | 0.237 |
| Medical history | ||||
| Previous myocardial infarction | 64 (33.7%) | 36 (52.2%) | 28 (23.1%) | < 0.0001 |
| Previous stenting | 44 (23.2%) | 15 (21.7%) | 29 (24.0%) | 0.7263 |
| Previous CABG | 14 (7.4%) | 10 (14.5%) | 4 (3.3%) | 0.0045 |
| Valvular heart disease | 27 (14.2%) | 11 (15.9%) | 16 (13.2%) | 0.6057 |
| Atrial fibrillation | 46 (24.2%) | 18 (26.1%) | 28 (23.1%) | 0.6484 |
| III degree atrioventricular block | 5 (2.6%) | 5 (7.2%) | 0 | 0.0027 |
| Hypertension | 154 (81.1%) | 59 (85.5%) | 95 (78.5%) | 0.2367 |
| Diabetes | 94 (49.5%) | 39 (56.5%) | 55 (45.5%) | 0.1423 |
| Hyperlipidaemia | 182 (95.6%) | 67 (97.1%) | 115 (95.0%) | 0.4965 |
| Renal insufficiency | 46 (24.2%) | 28 (40.6%) | 18 (14.9%) | < 0.0001 |
| Previous cerebral infarction | 36 (18.9%) | 17 (24.6%) | 19 (15.7%) | 0.1307 |
| Cerebral hemorrhage | 2 (1%) | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | 0.6858 |
| Digestive disease | 62 (32.6%) | 18 (26.1%) | 44 (36.4%) | 0.1462 |
| Gastrointestinal hemorrhage | 7 (3.7%) | 2 (2.9%) | 5 (4.1%) | 0.6642 |
| Anaemia | 32 (16.8%) | 19 (27.5%) | 13 (10.7%) | 0.0029. |
| Peripheral arterial disease | 21 (11.1%) | 7 (10.1%) | 14 (11.6%) | 0.7632 |
| Respiratory disease | 30 (15.8%) | 14 (20.3%) | 16 (13.2%) | 0.1989 |
| Creatinine, mg/dL | 89.0 (74.0, 109.6) | 97.2 (80.9, 133.1) | 86.0 (71.1, 101.5) | 0.0005 |
| Systolic pressure, mmHg | 139.9 ± 23.6 | 139.1 ± 25.5 | 140.4 ± 22.6 | 0.7261 |
| Diastolic pressure, mmHg | 73.0 ± 13.7 | 70.4 ± 13.9 | 74.4 ± 13.4 | 0.0516 |
| Heart rate, beats per min | 76.5 (66.0, 90.0) | 80.0 (67.0, 90.0) | 74.0 (66.0, 86.0) | 0.0638 |
| GRACE score | 172.5 ± 15.1 | 177.2 ± 16.2 | 169.9 ± 13.8 | 0.0012 |
| Lesion branches | ||||
| 1 | 1 (0.5%) | 0 | 1 (0.8%) | NA |
| 2 | 17 (8.9%) | 0 | 17 (14.0%) | NA |
| 3 | 31 (16.3%) | 0 | 31 (25.6%) | NA |
| 4 | 72 (37.9%) | 0 | 72 (59.5%) | NA |
| Left main coronary artery | 20 (10.5%) | 0 | 20 (100.0%) | NA |
| EF | 0.0191 | |||
| < 50% | 50 (26.3%) | 25 (36.2%) | 25 (20.7%) | |
| ≥ 50% | 140 (73.7%) | 44 (63.8%) | 96 (79.3%) | |
| Killip class | 0.0037 | |||
| I | 120 (63.2%) | 32 (46.4%) | 88 (72.7%) | 0.001 |
| II | 50 (26.3%) | 27 (39.1%) | 23 (19.0%) | |
| III | 15 (7.9%) | 8 (11.6%) | 7 (5.8%) | 0.696 |
| IV | 5 (2.6%) | 2 (2.9%) | 3 (2.5%) |
Data are presented as means ± SD or n (%) or median (interquartile range). BMI: body mass index; CABG: coronary artery bypass graft; EF: left ventricular ejection fraction.
Medical treatment at discharge.
| Medical treatment | Total ( | Conservative strategy group ( | Invasive strategy group ( | |
| Aspirin | 179 (94.2%) | 62 (89.9%) | 121 (100.0%) | 0.0526 |
| Clopidogrel | 172 (90.5%) | 62 (89.9%) | 110 (90.9%) | 0.8114 |
| Statins | 180 (94.7%) | 62 (89.9%) | 118 (97.5%) | 0.0229 |
| 156 (82.1%) | 54 (78.3%) | 102 (84.3%) | 0.2965 | |
| ACEI/ARB | 96 (50.5%) | 33 (47.8%) | 63 (52.1%) | 0.5740 |
| Diuretic | 74 (38.9%) | 41 (59.4%) | 33 (27.3%) | < 0.0001 |
Data are presented as n (%). ACEI: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB: angiotensin receptor blocker.
Clinical outcomes and complications.
| Outcome and complication | Total ( | Conservative strategy group ( | Invasive strategy group ( | |
| Death | 50 (26.3%) | 29 (42.0%) | 21 (17.4%) | 0.0002 |
| Complications | ||||
| Angina pectoris | 7 (3.7%) | 1 (1.4%) | 6 (5.0%) | 0.2168 |
| Heart failure | 5 (2.6%) | 2 (2.9%) | 3 (2.5%) | 0.8622 |
| Atrial fibrillation | 1 (0.5%) | 0 | 1 (0.8%) | NA |
| AMI | 1 (0.5%) | 0 | 1 (0.8%) | NA |
| Cerebral infarction | 1 (0.5%) | 0 | 1 (0.8%) | NA |
| Readmission | 23 (12%) | 5 (7.2%) | 18 (14.9%) | 0.1210 |
Data are presented as n (%). AMI: acute myocardial infarction.
Multivariate analysis for influential factors of invasive strategy.
| Variable | Standard error | Wald | OR | 95% CI | ||
| Age | 0.61 | 0.43 | 2.05 | 0.15 | 1.85 | (0.80–4.26) |
| Creatinine | 0.01 | 0.01 | 3.91 | 0.05 | 1.01 | (0.10–1.03) |
| Diastolic pressure | −0.01 | 0.02 | 0.67 | 0.41 | 0.99 | (0.95–1.02) |
| Heart rate | 0.015 | 0.01 | 1.21 | 0.27 | 1.02 | (0.99–1.04) |
| GRACE score | −0.01 | 0.02 | 0.40 | 0.53 | 0.99 | (0.95–1.03) |
| LVEF | 0.51 | 0.52 | 0.96 | 0.33 | 1.66 | (0.60–4.56) |
| Killip class | ||||||
| II | 0.55 | 0.45 | 1.53 | 0.22 | 1.74 | (0.73–4.15) |
| III | 0.18 | 0.75 | 0.06 | 0.81 | 1.20 | (0.27–5.28) |
| IV | −-0.17 | 1.11 | 0.02 | 0.88 | 0.84 | (0.10–7.39) |
| Previous myocardial infarction | 0.52 | 0.47 | 1.24 | 0.27 | 1.68 | (0.67–4.22) |
| Previous CABG | 1.18 | 0.75 | 2.48 | 0.12 | 3.24 | (0.75–14.06) |
| III degree atrioventricular block | 5.11 | 1.23 | 0.002 | 0.97 | 2.45 | (0.79–3.23) |
| Renal insufficiency | −0.001 | 0.60 | 0.002 | 0.97 | 0.99 | (0.31–3.25) |
| Anaemia | 0.43 | 0.57 | 0.56 | 0.45 | 1.53 | (0.50–4.65) |
| Aspirin | 2.72 | 0.66 | 0.009 | 0.98 | 3.41 | (0.44–4.89) |
| Statins | −4.46 | 0.69 | 0.001 | 0.97 | 1.20 | (0.45–1.89) |
| Diuretic | 1.30 | 0.43 | 8.94 | 0.003 | 3.65 | (1.56–8.53) |
Variables with P < 0.1 in univariate analysis were included. CABG: coronary artery bypass graft; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction.
Figure 1.Multivariate Cox regression models for accessing the association between the invasive and conservative strategies and mortality.
Model 1: unadjusted model; Model 2: adjusted for age, gender; Model 3: adjusted for age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipemia, anemia; and Model 4: adjusted for age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipemia, anemia, previous myocardial infarction, previous CABG, III degree atrioventricular block and renal insufficiency. The conservative strategy compared with the invasive strategy, P < 0.05. CABG: coronary artery bypass graft.
Figure 2.Survival probability of the invasive strategy versus the conservative strategy.
The invasive strategy compared with conservative strategy, P < 0.001. NSTEMI: non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.