Intensive management for ACS was associated with better survival than conservative treatment across all ages, though benefit decreased with age (e.g., STEMI HR 1.98 at 18-64 vs 1.36 at ≥85 years).
Cohort (n=155,818)
Yes
Does intensive management improve survival compared to a conservative strategy across different age groups in patients with acute coronary syndromes?
Intensive management for acute coronary syndromes confers a survival benefit across all age groups, including the very elderly, highlighting the need to address the underutilization of these therapies in older patients.
Hazard Ratio: 1.98 (95% CI 1.78–2.19)
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.
Zaman et al. (Tue,) conducted a cohort in acute coronary syndromes (n=155,818). Intensive management (reperfusion/angiography) vs. Conservative treatment was evaluated on all-cause mortality (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.78-2.19). Intensive management for ACS was associated with better survival than conservative treatment across all ages, though benefit decreased with age (e.g., STEMI HR 1.98 at 18-64 vs 1.36 at ≥85 years).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: