Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Efficacy and safety of a routine invasive strategy in non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes according to age: an illustration of the difficulty in using combined endpoints with different clinical significance
  1. Nicolas Danchin1,2,
  2. Etienne Puymirat1,2
  1. 1Division of Coronary Artery Disease and Intensive Cardiac Care, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
  2. 2Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
  1. Correspondence to Professor Nicolas Danchin, Division of coronary artery disease and intensive cardiac care, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 20 rue Leblanc 75015 Paris, France; nicolas.danchin{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.

The role of a routine invasive strategy in patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes remains a subject of debate. Following the results of several randomised trials many clinicians consider that an invasive strategy should be used in most patients but, in real-world practice, many centres tend to use a routine invasive strategy in younger patients, and a more selective approach in older individuals, in whom the presence of comorbidities is often perceived as a limitation to performing coronary angiography.1 The results of the pooled analysis of the Fragmin and Fast Revascularisation during Instability in Coronary Artery Disease (FRISC-II), Invasive Versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes (ICTUS) and Randomized Trial of a Conservative Treatment Strategy Versus an Interventional Treatment Strategy in Patients with Unstable Angina (RITA-3) trials, presented in a paper published in Heart, therefore appear particularly challenging.2

In their study, Damman et al2 have analysed the impact of the initial management strategy (routine invasive or selective invasive) on the 5-year risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (MI), according to the patients' age categories. Although the main objective of the study was to confirm (or refute) the positive role of an invasive strategy in elderly patients (an age category often underrepresented in randomised trials), the most striking finding was that a routine strategy in younger patients (<65 years) was not associated with a reduction in the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or MI, while such a strategy appeared beneficial in patients older than 65 years, including those over the age of 75 years. The unfavourable results of the invasive strategy in the younger patients were most probably drawn by the results of …

View Full Text


  • Linked article 300453.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles