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

This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01255540. Findings During a median follow-up of 1·53 years of participants recruited between Dec 10, 2010, and Feb 21, 2014, the primary outcome occurred in 93 (40·6%) of 229 patients assigned to the invasive group and 140 (61·4%) of 228 patients assigned to the conservative group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·41–0·69], p=0·0001). Five patients dropped out of the invasive group and one from the conservative group. HRs for the four components of the primary composite endpoint were 0·52 (0·35–0·76; p=0·0010) for myocardial infarction, 0·19 (0·07–0·52; p=0·0010) for the need for urgent revascularisation, 0·60 (0·25–1·46; p=0·2650) for stroke, and 0·89 (0·62–1·28; p=0·5340) for death from any cause. The invasive group had four (1·7%) major and 23 (10·0%) minor bleeding complications whereas the conservative group had four (1·8%) major and 16 (7·0%) minor bleeding complications. Interpretation In patients aged 80 years or more with NSTEMI or unstable angina, an invasive strategy is superior to a conservative strategy in the reduction of composite events. Efficacy of the invasive strategy was diluted with increasing age (after adjustment for creatinine and effect modification). The two strategies did not differ in terms of bleeding complications. Funding Norwegian Health Association (ExtraStiftelsen) and Inger and John Fredriksen Heart Foundation.
Source: The Lancet - Category: Journals (General) Source Type: research