Key result
Very elderly patients (>80 years) undergoing PCI had higher all-cause mortality (11.9% vs 6.1%) than those aged 75-80 years, but no significant difference in MACCE (16.2% vs 12.5%).
Why the study?
Does percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) yield acceptable long-term outcomes in very elderly patients (>80 years) compared to elderly patients (75-80 years)?
Cohort (n=580)
Does percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) yield acceptable long-term outcomes in very elderly patients (>80 years) compared to elderly patients (75-80 years)?
PCI in very elderly patients (>80 years) is associated with acceptable long-term cardiac outcomes comparable to those in patients aged 75-80 years, suggesting age alone should not preclude PCI.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Should not yet change PCI decisions in very elderly patients; leaves open need for age-stratified randomized trials.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to analyze the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes of very elderly patients (V. Eld. group, age >80 years) and compare their outcomes to a less elderly cohort (Eld. group, age 75-80 years) traditionally reported in the literature. BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on peri-procedural and long-term outcomes following PCI in the V. Eld. (age >80 years), with under-representation of this cohort in randomized controlled trials. These patients present with advanced complex coronary disease and multiple comorbidities. METHODS: All 580 consecutive patients aged ≥75 years (age 80 ± 4.9 years, 57.4% males) undergoing PCI between April 2006 and November 2011 were included. A total of 624 consecutive lesions were identified and analyzed. All V. Eld. patients (n = 253) were subsequently selected, and their outcomes compared to Eld. patients (n = 327). Mean follow-up was 30.8 ± 2.7 months with 98% clinical follow-up achieved. RESULTS: All comparative data are expressed as (V. Eld. vs Eld.) unless otherwise specified. All-cause mortality was significantly higher in the V. Eld. group (11.9% vs 6.1%), although this did not translate into a significant difference in cardiac mortality (6.3% vs 3.7%) or major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (16.2% vs 12.5%). The composite incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, definite/probable stent thrombosis, and TIMI major bleed was 4.7%, 1.4% 1.9%, and 6.4%, respectively with no significant difference between both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an acceptable occurrence of MI, death, repeat intervention, and stent thrombosis in a high-risk group of V. Eld. patients with de novo lesions. Age alone in the absence of other non-cardiac factors should not prohibit a patient from access to PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gerber et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease requiring PCI (n=580). Very elderly age (>80 years) vs. Elderly age (75-80 years) was evaluated on All-cause mortality. Very elderly patients (>80 years) undergoing PCI had higher all-cause mortality (11.9% vs 6.1%) than those aged 75-80 years, but no significant difference in MACCE (16.2% vs 12.5%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: