Why the study?
Data were lacking regarding mortality, the risks and benefits of reperfusion methods, and pharmacological complications in patients aged over 100 years with acute coronary syndromes.
Does an invasive strategy reduce mortality in patients aged ≥100 years with myocardial infarction compared to conservative treatment?
Does an invasive strategy reduce mortality in patients aged ≥100 years with myocardial infarction compared to conservative treatment?
Invasive treatment for myocardial infarction may improve 12-month survival in selected patients aged 100 years and older.
May support selective invasive strategy in centenarians with MI; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
Background: There are no data regarding the mortality rate, risks and benefits of particular reperfusion methods and pharmacological treatment complications in patients aged over 100 years with acute coronary syndromes. We sought to assess the treatment of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients older than 100 years and to determine prognostic factors for this group. Methods: Among the 716,566 patients recorded between 2003 and 2018 in the Polish Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes, 104 patients aged ≥100 with MI were included. The patients were categorized into two groups: group 1 received conservative treatment (64 patients), and group 2 received invasive strategy (40 patients). Results: The frequencies of in-hospital mortality, MI and stroke were similar in both arms. No difference in the frequency of the combined endpoint (death, reinfarction, stroke) was noted. Invasive treatment was more advantageous for 12-month outcomes; 50 patients in group 1 (79%) and 23 patients in group 2 (57.50%) died (p = 0.017). The multivariate analysis identified the lower left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.96; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.94–0.99; p = 0.012), lack of coronary angiography (HR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.24–0.99; p = 0.048) and cardiac arrest (HR = 4.61; 95% CI: 1.64–12.99; p = 0.0038) as predictors of 12-month mortality in this group. Conclusions: Invasive MI treatment may be beneficial for selected very old patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Piegza et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: