Key result
In elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome, percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with significantly improved survival at 1 and 3 years (P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does percutaneous coronary intervention improve short and long term survival in elderly patients (≥70 years) with acute coronary syndrome?
Population
491 elderly patients (aged ≥70 years) admitted with acute coronary syndrome, mean age 83 ± 6 years.
Comparison
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs No PCI treatment (medical management)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
1 and 3 years
Authors
Loading...
May support PCI consideration in elderly ACS; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm before practice change.
Cohort (n=491)
No
Does percutaneous coronary intervention improve short and long term survival in elderly patients (≥70 years) with acute coronary syndrome?
p-value: p=<0.001
In a real-world cohort of elderly patients (≥70 years) with acute coronary syndrome, PCI was associated with significantly improved 1- and 3-year survival compared to non-invasive management.
Chen et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n=491). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. No PCI was evaluated on 1- and 3-year survival (p=<0.001). In elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome, percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with significantly improved survival at 1 and 3 years (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: