Estrategia invasiva frente a conservadora en pacientes frágiles con IAMSEST. Diseño del ensayo clínico MOSCA-FRAIL

Abstract

Introduction and objectivesAlthough clinical guidelines recommend invasive management in non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), this strategy is underused in frail elderly patients in the real world. Furthermore, these patients are underrepresented in clinical trials and therefore the evidence is scarce. Our hypothesis is that an invasive strategy will improve prognosis in elderly frail patients with NSTEMI. MethodsThis will be a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial, in which the conservative and invasive strategies will be compared in patients meeting all of the following inclusion criteria: NSTEMI diagnosis, age ≥ 70 years, and frailty defined by a category ≥ 4 in the Clinical Frailty Scale. Participants will be randomized to an invasive (coronary angiogram and revascularization if anatomically amenable) or conservative (medical treatment and coronary angiogram only if persistent clinical instability) strategy. The primary endpoint will be the number of days alive out of hospital during the first year. The coprimary endpoint will be the time until the first cardiac event (cardiac death, reinfarction or postdischarge revascularization). We estimate a sample size of 178 patients (89 per arm), considering an increase of 20% in the proportion of days alive out of hospital with the invasive management. ResultsThe results of this study will add important knowledge to inform the management of frail elderly patients hospitalized with NSTEMI. ConclusionsWe hypothesize that the invasive strategy will improve outcomes in frail elderly patients with NSTEMI. If this is confirmed, frailty status should not dissuade physicians from implementing an invasive management strategy. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03208153).Full English text available from: www.revespcardiol.org/en