Meta-Analysis on Invasive Versus Conservative Strategy in Patients Older Than Seventy Years With Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Abstract

Management of non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) has evolved over the years, but most published data are from younger patients. Data on the NSTEMI management in older patients remain limited. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the long-term outcomes of invasive versus conservative strategies in older patients (>70 years old) with NSTEMI. Of 1,550 reports searched, 4 randomized controlled trials (1,126 patients) were included in the analysis, with a median follow-up of 1.25years (range: 1 to 2.5years). The median age of included patients was 83.6 (interquartile range: 2.8years). The invasive strategy was associated with significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40 to 0.91, I2=54%; 3 trials] and unplanned revascularization (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.64, I2=1.7%; 3 trials] than was the conservative strategy. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.18, I2=0%; 4 trials], myocardial infarction (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.19, I2=54.7%; 4 trials], or bleeding (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.93, I2=0%; 3 trials] between the strategies. In conclusion, the use of initial invasive strategy in older patients presenting with NSTEMI was associated with a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event and unplanned revascularization than that of the initial conservative strategy without increased bleeding.