Objective To perform a patient-pooled analysis of a routine invasive versus a selective invasive strategy in elderly patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome.
Methods A meta-analysis was performed of patient-pooled data from the FRISC II–ICTUS–RITA-3 (FIR) studies. (Un)adjusted HRs were calculated by Cox regression, with adjustments for variables associated with age and outcomes. The main outcome was 5-year cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (MI) following routine invasive versus selective invasive management.
Results Regarding the 5-year composite of cardiovascular death or MI, the routine invasive strategy was associated with a lower hazard in patients aged 65–74 years (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.90) and those aged ≥75 years (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.91), but not in those aged <65 years (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.38), p=0.001 for interaction between treatment strategy and age. The interaction was driven by an excess of early MIs in patients <65 years of age; there was no heterogeneity between age groups concerning cardiovascular death. The benefits were smaller for women than for men (p=0.009 for interaction). After adjustment for other clinical risk factors the HRs remained similar.
Conclusion The current analysis of the FIR dataset shows that the long-term benefit of the routine invasive strategy over the selective invasive strategy is attenuated in younger patients aged <65 years and in women by the increased risk of early events which seem to have no consequences for long-term cardiovascular mortality. No other clinical risk factors were able to identify patients with differential responses to a routine invasive strategy.
- Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome
- treatment strategy
- risk factors
- acute coronary syndrome
- cardiac remodelling
- risk stratification
- acute ischaemic syndromes
Statistics from Altmetric.com
See Editorial, p 173
Competing interests The collaboration and meta-analysis were conducted using resources from the host institutions for the respective studies (KAAF is supported by the British Heart Foundation; LW is supported by the Swedish Heart Foundation) and from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. KAAF has received grants and honoraria from Sanofi-Aventis/Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly and AstraZeneca. SJP has consulted for The Medicines Company and has served on a Boston Scientific-sponsored Data Monitoring Committee.
Ethics approval British, Dutch and Swedish local ethics committees approved the original studies.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
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.