Key result
An invasive treatment strategy in elderly patients with myocardial infarction was associated with lower 5-year mortality compared to a conservative strategy (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.39-0.62; P<0.0001).
Why the study?
Does an invasive treatment strategy reduce 5-year mortality in elderly patients (>75 years) with acute myocardial infarction compared to a conservative strategy?
Population
1,413 elderly patients with a final diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction admitted to a single center in…
Comparison
Invasive treatment strategy vs Conservative treatment strategy
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
5 years
Authors
Loading...
May support invasive strategy in selected elderly MI patients; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm benefit.
Cohort (n=1,413)
No
Does an invasive treatment strategy reduce 5-year mortality in elderly patients (>75 years) with acute myocardial infarction compared to a conservative strategy?
Hazard Ratio: 0.49 (95% CI 0.39–0.62)
p-value: p=<0.0001
In elderly patients (>75 years) with acute myocardial infarction, an invasive treatment strategy was associated with significantly lower 5-year mortality compared to a conservative strategy, highlighting the need for randomized trials in this population.
Libungan et al. (2015) conducted a cohort in acute myocardial infarction (n=1,413). Invasive treatment strategy vs. Conservative treatment strategy was evaluated on 5 year mortality (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39, 0.62, p=<0.0001). An invasive treatment strategy in elderly patients with myocardial infarction was associated with lower 5-year mortality compared to a conservative strategy (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.39-0.62; P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: