Percutaneous coronary intervention in the very elderly with NSTE-ACS: the randomized 80+ study.
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
MetadataShow full item record
CitationHirlekar G, Libungan B, Karlsson T, Bäck M, Herlitz J, Albertsson P. Percutaneous coronary intervention in the very elderly with NSTE-ACS: the randomized 80+ study [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jun 26]. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2020;1-7. doi:10.1080/14017431.2020.1781243
AbstractObjective: The treatment strategy in the very elderly with NSTE-ACS is debated, as they are often under-represented in clinical trials. The aim of this multicenter randomized controlled trial was to compare invasive and conservative strategies in the very elderly with NSTE-ACS.Methods: We randomly assigned patients ≥ 80 years of age with NSTE-ACS to an invasive strategy with coronary angiography and optimal medical treatment or a conservative strategy with only optimal medical treatment. The primary outcome was the combined endpoint of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Sample size was powered for a 50% reduction of event rate in MACCE with an invasive strategy. We used intention-to-treat analysis.Results: Altogether, 186 patients were included between 2009 and 2017. The study was terminated prematurely due to slow enrollment. At 12-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 31 (33.3%) of the invasive treatment group and 34 (36.6%) of the conservative treatment group, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.90 (95% CI 0.55‒1.46; p = 0.66) for the invasive group relative to the conservative group. The corresponding HR value for urgent revascularization was 0.29 (95% CI 0.10‒0.85; p = 0.02), 0.56 (95% CI 0.27‒1.18; p = 0.13) for myocardial infarction, 0.70 (95% CI 0.31‒1.58; p = 0.40) for all-cause mortality, 1.35 (95% CI 0.23‒7.98; p = 0.74) for stroke, and 1.62 (95% CI 0.67‒3.90; p = 0.28) for recurrent hospitalization for cardiac reasons.Conclusion: In the very elderly with NSTE-ACS, we did not find any significant difference in MACCE between invasive and conservative treatment groups at 12-month follow-up, possibly due to small sample size. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02126202.
DescriptionTo access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked Download
- Effect of invasive strategy on long-term mortality in elderly patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome.
- Authors: Yilmaz S, Adali MK, Kilic O, Til A, Yaylali YT
- Issue date: 2020 Sep/Oct
- Optimal Timing of Intervention in NSTE-ACS Without Pre-Treatment: The EARLY Randomized Trial.
- Authors: Lemesle G, Laine M, Pankert M, Boueri Z, Motreff P, Paganelli F, Baumstarck K, Roch A, Kerbaul F, Puymirat E, Bonello L
- Issue date: 2020 Apr 27
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of an invasive strategy compared to a conservative approach in patients > 65 years old with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome.
- Authors: Reaño JDP, Shiu LAB, Miralles KV, Dimalala MGC, Pestaño NS, Punzalan FER, Tumanan-Mendoza B, Reyes MJT, Castillo RR
- Issue date: 2020
- Invasive Management Strategies and Antithrombotic Treatments in Patients With Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome in China: Findings From the Improving CCC Project (Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China).
- Authors: Yang Q, Wang Y, Liu J, Liu J, Hao Y, Smith SC Jr, Huo Y, Fonarow GC, Ma C, Ge J, Taubert KA, Morgan L, Guo Y, Wang W, Zhou Y, Zhao D, CCC-ACS Investigators.
- Issue date: 2017 Jun
- Meta-analysis of optimal timing of coronary intervention in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome.
- Authors: Barbarawi M, Kheiri B, Zayed Y, Barbarawi O, Chahine A, Haykal T, Kanugula AK, Bachuwa G, Alkotob ML, Bhatt DL
- Issue date: 2020 Feb