Primary PCI is safe and efficacious in STEMI patients aged >=85 years with low Killip class on admission, but it does not overcome the poor prognosis associated with cardiogenic shock.
Urges caution for primary PCI in nonagenarians or shocked elderly STEMI patients; leaves open optimal strategies pending dedicated trials.
BACKGROUND: Although octogenarians constitute a fast growing portion of cardiovascular patients, few data are available on the outcome of very old patients (age >80 years) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary angioplasty. METHODS AND RESULTS: Short- and long-term outcomes of 88 consecutive very old (age > or =85 years) patients with STEMI undergoing primary angioplasty were evaluated. In-hospital mortality was 17%, significantly higher in patients with cardiogenic shock (90%; p<0.001), with failure of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; p=0.016), with Killip class > or =III on admission (p=0.018), or with chronic renal failure (p=0.033). Major bleeding complications occurred in 11 patients (12%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified 3 independent predictors of in-hospital death: age > or =90 years (p=0.018), Killip > or =III on admission (p=0.018), and PCI failure (p=0.025). Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified age > or =90 years (p=0.008), Killip > or =III on admission (p=0.015), and time from symptoms to PCI >12 h (p=0.04) as independent predictors of mortality at long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The low incidence of procedural complications, together with good long term survival, suggest that primary PCI in STEMI patients > or =85 years is safe and efficacious, with a low rate of PCI failure in the presence of a low Killip class on admission, whereas primary PCI is unable to affect the poor prognosis for very old patients with cardiogenic shock.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Valente et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: