Why the study?
Older patients are underrepresented in prospective studies and randomized clinical trials of ACS, despite being a heterogeneous, complex, and high-risk group requiring a multidimensional clinical approach.
Does an invasive approach improve outcomes compared to a conservative approach in older adults with acute coronary syndromes?
Does an invasive approach improve outcomes compared to a conservative approach in older adults with acute coronary syndromes?
In older adults with ACS, an invasive approach offers a better benefit-risk ratio than a conservative one, but aggressive antithrombotic therapy increases bleeding without reducing mortality.
May favor invasive over conservative management in older ACS patients; leaves open optimal antithrombotic intensity for secondary prevention.
Older patients are underrepresented in prospective studies and randomized clinical trials of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Over the last decade, a few specific trials have been conducted in this population, allowing more evidence-based management. Older adults are a heterogeneous, complex, and high-risk group whose management requires a multidimensional clinical approach beyond coronary anatomic variables. This review focuses on available data informing evidence-based interventional and pharmacological approaches for older adults with ACS, including guideline-directed management. Overall, an invasive approach appears to demonstrate a better benefit-risk ratio compared to a conservative one across the ACS spectrum, even considering patients' clinical complexity and multiple comorbidities. Conversely, more powerful strategies of antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention have been associated with increased bleeding events and no benefit in terms of mortality reduction. An interdisciplinary evaluation with geriatric assessment should always be considered to achieve a holistic approach and optimize any treatment on the basis of the underlying biological vulnerability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morici et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: