Effect of Routine Invasive vs Conservative Strategy in Older Adults With Frailty and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance To our knowledge, no randomized clinical trial has compared the invasive and conservative strategies in frail, older patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Objective To compare outcomes of invasive and conservative strategies in frail, older patients with NSTEMI at 1 year. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted at 13 Spanish hospitals between July 7, 2017, and January 9, 2021, and included 167 older adult (≥70 years) patients with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥4) and NSTEMI. Data analysis was performed from April 2022 to June 2022. Interventions Patients were randomized to routine invasive (coronary angiography and revascularization if feasible; n = 84) or conservative (medical treatment with coronary angiography for recurrent ischemia; n = 83) strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was the number of days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH) from discharge to 1 year. The coprimary end point was the composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or postdischarge revascularization. Results The study was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic when 95% of the calculated sample size had been enrolled. Among the 167 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 86 (5) years, and mean (SD) Clinical Frailty Scale score was 5 (1). While not statistically different, DAOH were about 1 month (28 days; 95% CI, -7 to 62) greater for patients managed conservatively (312 days; 95% CI, 289 to 335) vs patients managed invasively (284 days; 95% CI, 255 to 311; P = .12). A sensitivity analysis stratified by sex did not show differences. In addition, we found no differences in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.74-2.85; P = .28). There was a 28-day shorter survival in the invasive vs conservatively managed group (95% CI, -63 to 7 days; restricted mean survival time analysis). Noncardiac reasons accounted for 56% of the readmissions. There were no differences in the number of readmissions or days spent in the hospital after discharge between groups. Neither were there differences in the coprimary end point of ischemic cardiac events (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.54-1.57; P = .78). Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of NSTEMI in frail older patients, there was no benefit to a routine invasive strategy in DAOH during the first year. Based on these findings, a policy of medical management and watchful observation is recommended for older patients with frailty and NSTEMI. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03208153.

[1]  I. Barbash,et al.  Invasive Management in Older Adults (≥80 Years) With Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction. , 2022, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[2]  X. Freixa,et al.  Outcomes of Nonagenarians With Acute Coronary Syndrome. , 2021, Journal of the American Medical Directors Association.

[3]  OUP accepted manuscript , 2021, European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care.

[4]  Emad Abu-Assi,et al.  Carga de comorbilidad y beneficio de la revascularización en ancianos con síndrome coronario agudo , 2020 .

[5]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. , 2020, European heart journal.

[6]  Graham M Lord,et al.  Invasive versus non-invasive management of older patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (SENIOR-NSTEMI): a cohort study based on routine clinical data , 2020, The Lancet.

[7]  M. Vidán,et al.  FRAIL Scale also Predicts Long-Term Outcomes in Older Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes. , 2019, Journal of the American Medical Directors Association.

[8]  Héctor Bueno,et al.  Estrategia invasiva frente a conservadora en pacientes frágiles con IAMSEST. Diseño del ensayo clínico MOSCA-FRAIL , 2019, Revista Española de Cardiología.

[9]  H. Bueno,et al.  Recommendations of the Geriatric Cardiology Section of the Spanish Society of Cardiology for the Assessment of Frailty in Elderly Patients With Heart Disease. , 2019, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[10]  H. Bueno,et al.  Invasive strategy and frailty in very elderly patients with acute coronary syndromes. , 2018, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[11]  G. Lip,et al.  Editor’s Choice - Frailty and the management of patients with acute cardiovascular disease: A position paper from the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association , 2018, European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care.

[12]  H. Bueno,et al.  An Easy Assessment of Frailty at Baseline Independently Predicts Prognosis in Very Elderly Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes. , 2017, Journal of the American Medical Directors Association.

[13]  B. Bendz,et al.  Health-related quality of life in older patients with acute coronary syndrome randomised to an invasive or conservative strategy. The After Eighty randomised controlled trial , 2018, Age and ageing.

[14]  J. Núñez,et al.  Prognostic Value of Geriatric Conditions Beyond Age After Acute Coronary Syndrome , 2017, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[15]  E. Núñez,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention and recurrent hospitalizations in elderly patients with non ST-segment acute coronary syndrome: The role of frailty. , 2017, International journal of cardiology.

[16]  A. Bayés‐Genís,et al.  Randomized comparison between the invasive and conservative strategies in comorbid elderly patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. , 2016, European journal of internal medicine.

[17]  B. Bendz,et al.  Invasive versus conservative strategy in patients aged 80 years or older with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris (After Eighty study): an open-label randomised controlled trial , 2016, The Lancet.

[18]  C. Hermenegildo,et al.  Frailty and other geriatric conditions for risk stratification of older patients with acute coronary syndrome. , 2014, American heart journal.

[19]  S. de Servi,et al.  Early aggressive versus initially conservative treatment in elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. , 2012, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[20]  M. Pfeffer,et al.  Days alive and out of hospital and the patient journey in patients with heart failure: Insights from the candesartan in heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program. , 2011, American heart journal.

[21]  F. Fernández‐Avilés,et al.  Prevalence of geriatric syndromes and impact on clinical and functional outcomes in older patients with acute cardiac diseases , 2011, Heart.

[22]  J. E. Morley,et al.  The I.A.N.A. task force on frailty assessment of older people in clinical practice , 2008, The journal of nutrition, health & aging.

[23]  I. McDowell,et al.  A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people , 2005, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[24]  D. Rubin Using Propensity Scores to Help Design Observational Studies: Application to the Tobacco Litigation , 2001, Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology.

[25]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[26]  E. Pfeiffer A Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire for the Assessment of Organic Brain Deficit in Elderly Patients † , 1975, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[27]  F. Mahoney,et al.  FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION: THE BARTHEL INDEX. , 2018, Maryland state medical journal.