Background: Invasive treatment is commonly recommended for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS). However, the efficacy of this approach in patients aged ≥80 years remains uncertain. Methods: We retrospectively assessed consecutive NSTE-ACS patients ≥80 years of age who were hospitalized at our cardiovascular center from December 2012 to July 2019. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received invasive treatment (coronary angiography and, if indicated, revascularization) or not. Patients who died in the first 3 days after admission without receiving invasive treatment were excluded. The effect of invasive timed treatment was also explored by dividing patients into timely invasive or delayed invasive groups according to their risk classification. Multivariate COX regression, invasive probability weighting and propensity score matching were used to adjust for confounding variables. The primary outcome was all-cause death during follow-up. Results: A total of 1,201 patients with a median age of 82.0 (IQR, 81.0-84.0) were divided into two groups: 656 (54.6%) patients in the invasive group and 545 (45.4%) patients in the conservative group. Follow-up survival information was available for up to 6 years (median 3.0 years). During the follow-up, 296 (24.6%) patients died. After adjusting for confounding variables, the invasive treatment strategy was significantly associated with a lower risk of long-term mortality (HR =0.70, 95% CI: 0.54-0.92, P=0.010). No difference was found between timely invasive and delayed invasive interventions with mortality (HR =0.92, 95% CI: 0.57-1.47, P=0.725). Conclusions: Invasive treatment was associated with lower mortality in patients ≥80 years of age with NSTE-ACS over a median of a 3-year follow-up. The invasive intervention time did not impact the outcome. 2022 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Background: Invasive treatment is commonly recommended for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS). However, the efficacy of this approach in patients aged ≥80 years remains uncertain. Methods: We retrospectively assessed consecutive NSTE-ACS patients ≥80 years of age who were hospitalized at our cardiovascular center from December 2012 to July 2019. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received invasive treatment (coronary angiography and, if indicated, revascularization) or not. Patients who died in the first 3 days after admission without receiving invasive treatment were excluded. The effect of invasive timed treatment was also explored by dividing patients into timely invasive or delayed invasive groups according to their risk classification. Multivariate COX regression, invasive probability weighting and propensity score matching were used to adjust for confounding variables. The primary outcome was all-cause death during follow-up. Results: A total of 1,201 patients with a median age of 82.0 (IQR, 81.0-84.0) were divided into two groups: 656 (54.6%) patients in the invasive group and 545 (45.4%) patients in the conservative group. Follow-up survival information was available for up to 6 years (median 3.0 years). During the follow-up, 296 (24.6%) patients died. After adjusting for confounding variables, the invasive treatment strategy was significantly associated with a lower risk of long-term mortality (HR =0.70, 95% CI: 0.54-0.92, P=0.010). No difference was found between timely invasive and delayed invasive interventions with mortality (HR =0.92, 95% CI: 0.57-1.47, P=0.725). Conclusions: Invasive treatment was associated with lower mortality in patients ≥80 years of age with NSTE-ACS over a median of a 3-year follow-up. The invasive intervention time did not impact the outcome. 2022 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Authors: Hyun-Jae Kang; Dajuanicia Simon; Tracy Y Wang; Karen P Alexander; Myung Ho Jeong; Hyo-Soo Kim; Eric R Bates; Timothy D Henry; Eric D Peterson; Matthew T Roe Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Harald Rittger; Steffen Schnupp; Anil-Martin Sinha; Ole-Alexander Breithardt; Martin Schmidt; Stefan Zimmermann; Christian Mahnkopf; Johannes Brachmann; Johannes Rieber Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Stefano Savonitto; Claudio Cavallini; A Sonia Petronio; Ernesto Murena; Roberto Antonicelli; Alice Sacco; Giuseppe Steffenino; Francesco Bonechi; Ernesto Mossuti; Antonio Manari; Salvatore Tolaro; Anna Toso; Alessandro Daniotti; Federico Piscione; Nuccia Morici; Bruno M Cesana; M Cristina Jori; Stefano De Servi Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Carolina Malta Hansen; Tracy Y Wang; Anita Y Chen; Karen Chiswell; Deepak L Bhatt; Jonathan R Enriquez; Timothy Henry; Matthew T Roe Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Philip Urban; Roxana Mehran; Roisin Colleran; Dominick J Angiolillo; Robert A Byrne; Davide Capodanno; Thomas Cuisset; Donald Cutlip; Pedro Eerdmans; John Eikelboom; Andrew Farb; C Michael Gibson; John Gregson; Michael Haude; Stefan K James; Hyo-Soo Kim; Takeshi Kimura; Akihide Konishi; John Laschinger; Martin B Leon; P F Adrian Magee; Yoshiaki Mitsutake; Darren Mylotte; Stuart Pocock; Matthew J Price; Sunil V Rao; Ernest Spitzer; Norman Stockbridge; Marco Valgimigli; Olivier Varenne; Ute Windhoevel; Robert W Yeh; Mitchell W Krucoff; Marie-Claude Morice Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Marco Roffi; Carlo Patrono; Jean-Philippe Collet; Christian Mueller; Marco Valgimigli; Felicita Andreotti; Jeroen J Bax; Michael A Borger; Carlos Brotons; Derek P Chew; Baris Gencer; Gerd Hasenfuss; Keld Kjeldsen; Patrizio Lancellotti; Ulf Landmesser; Julinda Mehilli; Debabrata Mukherjee; Robert F Storey; Stephan Windecker Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 29.983