An Invasive vs a Conservative Approach in Elderly Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: Elderly (≥ 75 years) patients form a large sub-group of non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) population but are vastly under-represented in trials. Thus, the benefits of an early angiography in the elderly remain unclear. In this systematic review, we compared outcomes of “invasive” and “conservative” strategies of NSTEMI management in elderly patients.

Methods: A comprehensive search of major databases was performed. We included comparative studies of any design that enrolled patients ≥ 75 years, and where outcomes of both strategies of NSTEMI management were available.

Results: Among the included studies (3 randomized and 6 observational), there were 6340 patients in the “invasive” group and 13,358 patients in the “conservative” group. The 12-month mortality rate (odds ration [OR], 0.45; p < 0.00001), the 30-day mortality (OR, 0.50; p = 0.0009), and events of stroke (OR, 0.42; p < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the invasive group. Major bleeding was higher in the invasive cohort (OR, 1.63; p = 0.03). Analysis of randomised studies showed lower reinfarction with invasive approach at 12 months (p = 0.0001). Significant heterogeneity was noted among studies according to study design.

Conclusion: The overall benefit with invasive strategy comes from the data of observational studies that are prone to selection bias. We believe that there is a need for a large randomized study in the elderly patients regarding management of NSTEMI.