Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Increased risk and increased reward in coronary intervention in older patients with acute coronary syndrome
  1. Ramesh Mazhari1,
  2. Navin Kapur2
  1. 1Department of Cardiology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
  2. 2Tufts, Boston, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ramesh Mazhari, Department of Cardiology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA; rmazhari{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

In the USA, among patients 65 years or younger, 75% of those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) receive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to the National Registry for Myocardial Infarction (NRMI).1 These high figures contrast markedly with PCI rates among older patients. In the elderly population, only 40% of patients older than 75 years of age receive reperfusion therapy.1 Somewhat consistent with these low US figures, a recent study in England found an incremental reduction in the use of invasive and medical therapies with increasing age.2

The current American College of Cardiology/AHA guidelines and ESC guidelines do not suggest any age limitation in the use of PCI in management of ACS.3 ,4 The ESC guidelines suggest that the invasive strategy and PCI show increased benefit in older patients.4 The randomised clinical trials, however, provide limited data in relation to management of ACS in elderly patients. Most of the large PCI trials specifically excluded older patients, and when all clinical trials are considered, only about 9% of enrolled patients are older than 75 years, where in actual clinical practice about 35% of patients presenting with ACS are older than 75 years.1 In addition, the baseline characteristics of the older patients in clinical trials are different from the older population in the community.4 The patients in …

View Full Text


  • Contributors RM, is the first author of this editorial and has contributed to writing the text and researching the material. NK has provided input into the subject material and edited the content of the editorial.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles