Invasive Treatment Strategy for Older Patients with Myocardial Infarction

Vijay Kunadian, Helen Mossop, Carol Shields, Michelle Bardgett, Philippa Watts, M. Dawn Teare, Jonathan Pritchard, Jennifer Adams-Hall, Craig Runnett, David P. Ripley, Justin Carter, Julie Quigley, Justin Cooke, David Austin, Jerry Murphy, Damian Kelly, James McGowan, Murugapathy Veerasamy, Dirk Felmeden, Hussain ContractorSanjay Mutgi, John Irving, Steven Lindsay, Gavin Galasko, Kelvin Lee, Ayyaz Sultan, Amardeep G. Dastidar, Shazia Hussain, Iftikhar Ul Haq, Mark De Belder, Martin Denvir, Marcus Flather, Robert F. Storey, David E. Newby, Stuart J. Pocock, Keith A.A. Fox, British Heart Foundation SENIOR-RITA Trial Team and Investigators

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Whether a conservative strategy of medical therapy alone or a strategy of medical therapy plus invasive treatment is more beneficial in older adults with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains unclear. Methods We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial involving patients 75 years of age or older with NSTEMI at 48 sites in the United Kingdom. The patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a conservative strategy of the best available medical therapy or an invasive strategy of coronary angiography and revascularization plus the best available medical therapy. Patients who were frail or had a high burden of coexisting conditions were eligible. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes (cardiovascular death) or nonfatal myocardial infarction assessed in a time-to-event analysis. Results A total of 1518 patients underwent randomization; 753 patients were assigned to the invasive-strategy group and 765 to the conservative-strategy group. The mean age of the patients was 82 years, 45% were women, and 32% were frail. A primary-outcome event occurred in 193 patients (25.6%) in the invasive-strategy group and 201 patients (26.3%) in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.14; P=0.53) over a median follow-up of 4.1 years. Cardiovascular death occurred in 15.8% of the patients in the invasive-strategy group and 14.2% of the patients in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.44). Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 11.7% in the invasive-strategy group and 15.0% in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.99). Procedural complications occurred in less than 1% of the patients. Conclusions In older adults with NSTEMI, an invasive strategy did not result in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (the composite primary outcome) than a conservative strategy over a median follow-up of 4.1 years.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1673-1684
Number of pages12
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Volume391
Issue number18
Early online date1 Sept 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 21 Oct 2024

Keywords

  • Acute Coronary Syndromes
  • Cardiology
  • Cardiology General
  • Cardiovascular Surgery
  • Coronary Disease/Myocardial Infarction
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Frailty
  • Geriatrics/Aging
  • Geriatrics/Aging General
  • Surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Invasive Treatment Strategy for Older Patients with Myocardial Infarction'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this