Why the study?
The optimal strategy for managing older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome is uncertain.
Does a routine invasive treatment strategy reduce the risk of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction compared to conservative management in older patients (≥65 years) with NSTE-ACS?
Does a routine invasive treatment strategy reduce the risk of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction compared to conservative management in older patients (≥65 years) with NSTE-ACS?
In older patients (≥65 years) with NSTE-ACS, a routine invasive strategy does not reduce all-cause mortality or the composite of death or MI compared to conservative management, but it significantly reduces recurrent MI and urgent revascularization at the cost of increased severe bleeding.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Invasive strategy reduces MI and revascularization but raises bleeding risk without mortality benefit in older NSTE-ACS; supports individualized decisions and longer-term trials.
Background: The optimal strategy for managing older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is uncertain. We aimed to compare the outcomes of invasive vs. conservative strategies for managing NSTE-ACS in older patients ≥65 years. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov, up to March 2025. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a routine invasive treatment strategy with conservative management alone in patients ≥65 years old with NTE-ACS. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) under a random-effects model. Results: We included 8 RCTs (3,887 patients). There was no significant difference between invasive and conservative management in the risk of a composite outcome of all-cause mortality or MI (RR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.79, 1.06; HR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.74, 1.05), and all-cause mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.17; HR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.90, 1.19). Invasive management significantly decreased the risk of MI (RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.89) and revascularization (RR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.40). There was no significant difference between the two strategies in the risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.35) and stroke (RR 0.77; 95% CI: 0.53, 1.12). Invasive management increased the incidence of severe bleeding (RR 1.43; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.94). Conclusions: An invasive strategy in older patients with NSTE-ACS decreased the risk of MI and the need for revascularization. Future RCTs need longer follow-ups and should be conducted in ethnically diverse populations to enhance generalizability. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024629566, PROSPERO CRD42024629566.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vats et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: