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
- Timing of angiography with a routine invasive strategy and long-term outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from the FRISC II (Fragmin and Fast Revascularization During Instability in Coronary Artery Disease), ICTUS (Invasive Versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes), and RITA-3 (Intervention Versus Conservative Treatment Strategy in Patients With Unstable Angina or Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction) Trials.
- Authors: Damman P, van Geloven N, Wallentin L, Lagerqvist B, Fox KA, Clayton T, Pocock SJ, Hirsch A, Windhausen F, Tijssen JG, de Winter RJ
- Issue date: 2012 Feb
- Early invasive vs conservative treatment strategies in women and men with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis.
- Authors: O'Donoghue M, Boden WE, Braunwald E, Cannon CP, Clayton TC, de Winter RJ, Fox KA, Lagerqvist B, McCullough PA, Murphy SA, Spacek R, Swahn E, Wallentin L, Windhausen F, Sabatine MS
- Issue date: 2008 Jul 2
- Comparison of early and delayed invasive strategies in short-medium term among patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Authors: Zhang MB, Guo C, Li M, Lv YH, Fan YD, Wang ZL
- Issue date: 2019
- Invasive versus conservative strategy in patients aged 80 years or older with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris (After Eighty study): an open-label randomised controlled trial.
- Authors: Tegn N, Abdelnoor M, Aaberge L, Endresen K, Smith P, Aakhus S, Gjertsen E, Dahl-Hofseth O, Ranhoff AH, Gullestad L, Bendz B, After Eighty study investigators.
- Issue date: 2016 Mar 12
- 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