Key result
Contemporary management (2017-2021) of myocardial infarction was associated with reduced 29- to 365-day mortality compared to historical care (2002-2006) in highly frail elderly patients.
Why the study?
Guidelines recommend equal care for myocardial infarction regardless of age, but withholding treatment may be justified in elderly and frail patients, leaving trends in treatments and outcomes by frailty unclear.
Does contemporary guideline-based care improve 1-year mortality in elderly patients with myocardial infarction across all frailty levels?
Cohort (n=51,022)
Yes
Does contemporary guideline-based care improve 1-year mortality in elderly patients with myocardial infarction across all frailty levels?
Guideline-based MI treatments have increasingly been adopted in older and frail patients over the last two decades, translating to improved survival without a prohibitive bleeding risk.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support contemporary MI care in frail elderly; extends temporal trends to high-frailty subgroups.
Background Guidelines recommend that patients with myocardial infarction (MI) receive equal care regardless of age. However, withholding treatment may be justified in elderly and frail patients. This study aimed to investigate trends in treatments and outcomes of older patients with MI according to frailty. Methods and Results All patients aged ≥75 years with first‐time MI during 2002 to 2021 were identified through Danish nationwide registries. Frailty was categorized using the Hospital Frailty Risk Score. One‐year risk and hazard ratios (HRs) for days 0 to 28 and 29 to 365 were calculated for all‐cause death. A total of 51 022 patients with MI were included (median, 82 years; 50.2% women). Intermediate/high frailty increased from 26.7% in 2002 to 2006 to 37.1% in 2017 to 2021. Use of treatment increased substantially regardless of frailty: for example, 28.1% to 48.0% (statins), 21.8% to 33.7% (dual antiplatelet therapy), and 7.6% to 28.0% (percutaneous coronary intervention) for high frailty (all P ‐trend <0.001). One‐year death decreased for low frailty (35.1%–17.9%), intermediate frailty (49.8%–31.0%), and high frailty (62.8%–45.6%), all P ‐trend <0.001. Age‐ and sex‐adjusted 29‐ to 365‐day HRs (2017–2021 versus 2002–2006) were 0.53 (0.48–0.59), 0.62 (0.55–0.70), and 0.62 (0.46–0.83) for low, intermediate, and high frailty, respectively ( P ‐interaction=0.23). When additionally adjusted for treatment, HRs attenuated to 0.74 (0.67–0.83), 0.83 (0.74–0.94), and 0.78 (0.58–1.05), respectively, indicating that increased use of treatment may account partially for the observed improvements. Conclusions Use of guideline‐based treatments and outcomes improved concomitantly in older patients with MI, irrespective of frailty. These results indicate that guideline‐based management of MI may be reasonable in the elderly and frail.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Christensen et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Myocardial Infarction (n=51,022). Contemporary guideline-based care (calendar period 2017-2021) vs. Historical care (calendar period 2002-2006) was evaluated on All-cause death at days 29 to 365 (high frailty cohort) (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.83). Contemporary management (2017-2021) of myocardial infarction was associated with reduced 29- to 365-day mortality compared to historical care (2002-2006) in highly frail elderly patients.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: