Key result
Invasive therapies for acute myocardial infarction were associated with higher long-term survival compared to conservative therapy (adjusted HR 0.62; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Do invasive therapies improve long-term survival in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction compared to conservative therapy?
Population
1588 patients with acute myocardial infarction, including 548 patients >70 years old and 1040 patients <70…
Comparison
Invasive therapies during hospitalization vs Medical treatment (conservative therapy)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
up to 7.5 years
Authors
Loading...
May support invasive AMI care in elderly patients; leaves open whether RCTs confirm benefit or reflect selection bias.
Cohort (n=1,588)
Do invasive therapies improve long-term survival in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction compared to conservative therapy?
Hazard Ratio: 0.62
Absolute Event Rate: 71.9% vs 47.2%
p-value: p=<0.001
Invasive therapies during hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction are associated with improved long-term survival in elderly patients, with benefits comparable to those seen in younger patients.
Nicolau et al. (2009) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction (n=1,588). Invasive therapies (surgical myocardial revascularization and percutaneous coronary intervention) vs. Conservative therapy (medical treatment) was evaluated on Survival (HR 0.62, p=<0.001). Invasive therapies for acute myocardial infarction were associated with higher long-term survival compared to conservative therapy (adjusted HR 0.62; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: