After Eighty study
PubMed • Full text
Clinical Question
In patients older than 80 who have NSTEMI or Unstable Angina, does an invasive strategy compared with optimal medical management reduce the risk of cardiovascular events?
Bottom Line
Invasive strategy reduces risk of a composite outcome of cardiovascular events, namely MI and need for early revascularization.
Major Points
Several large randomized trials in NSTEMI and Unstable Angina had previously demonstrated a benefit of an invasive strategy for cardiac catherization in reducing cardiovascular risk. The FRISCII and the RITA-3 trials showed a reduce cardiovascular risk, but the age was younger.
Guidelines
AHA/ACC 2014 guidelines recommend routine invasive strategy for intermediate to high risk patients with NSTEMI/ACS (TIMI score of 2 or greater or a GRACE score of 109 or greater).
Design
- Multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial
- N= 457
- Invasive (n=229)
- Standard (n=228)
- Setting: 16 centers in Norway
- Enrollment: December 2010 to February 2014
- Mean follow-up: 1.53 years
- Analysis: Intention-to-treat
- Primary outcome: Composite cardiovascular outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent revascularization, and death
Population
Inclusion Criteria
- Age 80 and older
- NSTEMI or unstable angina
- clinically stable
Exclusion Criteria
- clinically unstable (cardiac or bleeding)
- less than 1 year prognosis
- significant mental disorders
Baseline Characteristics
- Mean age:84.8 years
- Mean Creatinine: 1.17 mg/dL
- Diabetes Mellitus Type 2: 17%
- Hypertension: 59%
- Smoking status (Previous or Present): 48%
- Prior MI: 43%
- Prior PCI: 22%
- Prior CABG: 17%
- Mean GRACE score 138 (corresponds with estimated 2.9% in hospital mortality risk
Interventions
- Randomized to invasive or conservative approaches
- Assessed within 2 days of hospitalization
- 48% of Invasive group had 3 vessel disease or Left main disease, 17% had calcification without significant stenosis, 1% was normal
- Invasive strategy cohort was transferred from non-PCI hospitals to a PCI hospital(Oslo University Hospital) within one day of randomizaiton
- Conservative therapy group remained at the initial community hospital and treated according to guidelines
Outcomes
Comparisons are invasive therapy vs. conservative therapy.
Primary Outcomes
- Composite cardiovascular endpoint (MI, Need for urgent revascularization, stroke, death)
- 41% vs. 61% (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.37-0.63; P=0.0001)
Secondary Outcomes
- Death from any cause
- 25% vs. 27% (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.59-1.27; P=0.53)
Subgroup Analysis
Age 90 years or less
- HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.35-0.62; P=0.0001
Age more than 90 years
- HR 1.21; 95% CI 0.53-2.7; P=0.6420
But the was a low number of patients over 90 (34)
Adverse Events
- Bleeding complications
- 2% vs. 2% (NA)
- 10% vs. 7% (NA)
Criticisms
Funding
Norwegian Health Association and Inger and John Fredriksen Heart Foundation
Further Reading
- Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Crawford MH, et al. Outcomes in patients with acute non-Q-wave myocardial infarction randomly assigned to an invasive as compared with a conservative management strategy. Veterans Aff airs Non-Q-Wave Infarction Strategies in Hospital (VANQWISH) Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1785–92.
- Wallentin L, Lagerqvist B, Husted S, Kontny F, Stahle E, Swahn E. Outcome at 1 year after an invasive compared with a non-invasive strategy in unstable coronary-artery disease: the FRISC II invasive randomised trial. FRISC II Investigators. Fast revascularization during Instability in coronary artery disease. Lancet 2000; 356: 9–16.
- Fox KA, Poole-Wilson P, Clayton TC, et al. 5-year outcome of an interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 914–20.
- TIMI
- ACC/AHA 2014 J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(24):2645-2687.