Invasive versus conservative strategies for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in the elderly: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Erfan Kohansal, Sepehr Jamalkhani, Alireza Hosseinpour, Fateme Yousefimoghaddam, Amir Askarinejad, Elnaz Hekmat, Amir Ghaffari Jolfayi, Armin Attar
{"title":"Invasive versus conservative strategies for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in the elderly: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Erfan Kohansal, Sepehr Jamalkhani, Alireza Hosseinpour, Fateme Yousefimoghaddam, Amir Askarinejad, Elnaz Hekmat, Amir Ghaffari Jolfayi, Armin Attar","doi":"10.1186/s12872-025-04560-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advances in managing non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) have yet to clarify the optimal treatment for elderly patients, whose complex health profiles and underrepresentation in trials add challenges to decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials comparing invasive versus conservative strategies in elderly patients (≥ 70 years) with NSTE-ACS through October 2024. Co-primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities, with secondary outcomes including myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, stroke, decompensated heart failure, and bleeding events. Outcomes were analyzed using both risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of 11 trials (4,114 patients) showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.98-1.11; HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.94-1.29) or cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.85-1.12; HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.73-1.20) between strategies. The invasive approach significantly reduced subsequent revascularization (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.27-0.62; HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.19- 0.47; p < 0.01 in both analyses) and MI risk (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57-0.99, p = 0.04; HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49-0.83, p < 0.01), though with some levels of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses for MI. Stroke and heart failure outcomes were comparable between strategies. However, it significantly increased the risk of both composite major and minor bleeding risk (RR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.02-2.20, p = 0.04) and major bleeding alone (RR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.04-3.56, p = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In elderly patients with NSTE-ACS, an invasive strategy reduces revascularization needs and, potentially, MI risk without impacting survival, but at the cost of increased bleeding risk. This supports individualized treatment decisions based on patient-specific characteristics, particularly bleeding risk and geriatric factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":9195,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cardiovascular Disorders","volume":"25 1","pages":"96"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cardiovascular Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-025-04560-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Advances in managing non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) have yet to clarify the optimal treatment for elderly patients, whose complex health profiles and underrepresentation in trials add challenges to decision-making.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials comparing invasive versus conservative strategies in elderly patients (≥ 70 years) with NSTE-ACS through October 2024. Co-primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities, with secondary outcomes including myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, stroke, decompensated heart failure, and bleeding events. Outcomes were analyzed using both risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR).

Results: Analysis of 11 trials (4,114 patients) showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.98-1.11; HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.94-1.29) or cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.85-1.12; HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.73-1.20) between strategies. The invasive approach significantly reduced subsequent revascularization (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.27-0.62; HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.19- 0.47; p < 0.01 in both analyses) and MI risk (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57-0.99, p = 0.04; HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49-0.83, p < 0.01), though with some levels of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses for MI. Stroke and heart failure outcomes were comparable between strategies. However, it significantly increased the risk of both composite major and minor bleeding risk (RR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.02-2.20, p = 0.04) and major bleeding alone (RR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.04-3.56, p = 0.04).

Conclusion: In elderly patients with NSTE-ACS, an invasive strategy reduces revascularization needs and, potentially, MI risk without impacting survival, but at the cost of increased bleeding risk. This supports individualized treatment decisions based on patient-specific characteristics, particularly bleeding risk and geriatric factors.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
480
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Cardiovascular Disorders is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of disorders of the heart and circulatory system, as well as related molecular and cell biology, genetics, pathophysiology, epidemiology, and controlled trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信