Abstract Body (Do not enter title and authors here): Background: Ambiguity surrounds invasive management of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTE-MI) in older adults (≥70 years), and the number of elderly patients undergoing invasive treatment in clinical practice remains relatively low. Data comparing the efficacy of invasive versus conservative medical management for NSTEMI in this population is conflicting due to the under-representation or exclusion of the older population from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs to evaluate the long-term outcomes of invasive versus conservative medical strategies in older patients with NSTEMI. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for the individual endpoints of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularization, and readmission for cardiovascular causes.
Results: A total of nine RCTs with 4,336 patients (Invasive: 2,368; Control: 1,968) with median follow-ups ranging from 6-63.6 months were included. Compared with a conservative strategy, an invasive strategy was associated with a significantly decreased risk of recurrent MI (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.81; p<0.001) (Figure 1) and unplanned revascularization (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25-0.56; p<0.001). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.39-1.35; p=0.42) (Figure 2), CV mortality (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.43-1.23; p=0.23), or readmission for cardiovascular causes (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.63-2.33; p=0.57) between invasive and conservative management strategies.
Conclusion: In older patients ≥70 years old with NSTE-MI, an invasive strategy reduced the risk of recurrent MI and revascularization when compared with conservative management. However invasive strategy did not offer any benefit in mortality or cardiac-cause related readmission over conservative management.