Key result
An invasive treatment strategy was independently associated with a significantly lower 28-day case fatality compared to a conservative strategy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction (OR 0.43).
Why the study?
Does an invasive strategy reduce 28-day-case fatality in elderly patients (75-84 years) with acute myocardial infarction compared to a conservative strategy?
Population
1,191 elderly patients aged 75-84 years with acute myocardial infarction surviving at least 24 hours…
Comparison
Invasive strategy vs Conservative strategy
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
28 days
Authors
Loading...
Invasive strategy should not yet alter elderly AMI management; leaves open whether RCTs confirm the observed association.
Observational (n=1,191)
Yes
Does an invasive strategy reduce 28-day-case fatality in elderly patients (75-84 years) with acute myocardial infarction compared to a conservative strategy?
Odds Ratio: 0.43 (95% CI 0.27–0.69)
Absolute Event Rate: 9.2% vs 21.4%
In real-world practice, an invasive treatment strategy is independently associated with significantly improved 28-day survival in elderly patients (75-84 years) with acute myocardial infarction, particularly those with NSTEMI.
Amann et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction (n=1,191). Invasive strategy (PCI or CABG) vs. Conservative strategy was evaluated on 28-day-case fatality (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.69). An invasive treatment strategy was independently associated with a significantly lower 28-day case fatality compared to a conservative strategy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction (OR 0.43).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: