Invasive coronary interventions suggested a possible efficacy signal for improved outcomes compared to conservative treatment in frail patients aged 75 years or older with acute coronary syndrome.
Systematic Review
Do invasive coronary interventions improve health outcomes compared to conservative management in frail patients aged 75 years or older with acute coronary syndrome?
Available observational evidence suggests a possible efficacy signal for invasive treatment in frail older patients with ACS, but the high risk of bias and confounding necessitates robust randomized trials.
PURPOSE: To assess current evidence comparing the impact of available coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with different subtypes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on health outcomes. METHODS: Scopus, Embase and PubMed were systematically searched in May 2022 for studies comparing outcomes between coronary interventions in frail older patients with ACS. Studies were excluded if they provided no objective assessment of frailty during the index admission, under-represented patients aged 75 years or older, or included patients with non-ACS coronary disease without presenting results for the ACS subgroup. Following data extraction from the included studies, a qualitative synthesis of results was undertaken. RESULTS: Nine studies met all eligibility criteria. All eligible studies were observational. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across study designs regarding ACS subtypes included, frailty assessments used, coronary interventions compared, and outcomes studied. All studies were assessed to be at high risk of bias. Notably, adjustment for confounders was limited or not adequately reported in all studies. The comparative assessment suggested a possible efficacy signal for invasive treatment relative to conservative treatment but possibly at the risk of increased bleeding events. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of evidence comparing health outcomes between different coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with ACS. Available evidence is at high risk of bias. Given the growing importance of ACS in frail patients aged 75 years or older, new studies are needed to inform optimal ACS care for this population. Future studies should rigorously adjust for confounders.
Wyk et al. (Sun,) conducted a systematic review in Acute coronary syndrome. Invasive coronary interventions vs. Conservative treatment was evaluated on Health outcomes (mortality, bleeding, readmission). Invasive coronary interventions suggested a possible efficacy signal for improved outcomes compared to conservative treatment in frail patients aged 75 years or older with acute coronary syndrome.