Abstract
Background
Some difficulties and variations remain associated with the care of elderly patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).
Methods
We included 1470 patients from a Taiwan nationwide registry who fulfilled the criteria of NSTE-ACS, and stratified these patients by age and evaluated the treatment, complications and outcomes in different age groups. Furthermore, we analyzed risk factors and standards of care to determine the predictors of mortality.
Results
Patients ≥ 75 years of age (n = 396) had significantly higher incidences of 90-day mortality [odd ratio (OR) = 4.5 (1.2-16.3), p = 0.023] and 1-year mortality [OR = 4.9 (2.0-12.3), p = 0.001] compared with those patients 45-64 years of age (n = 595). In the patients ≥ 75 years of age, previous myocardial infarction (MI) [OR = 3.3 (1.1-9.8), p = 0.035], statins [OR = 0.35 (0.1-0.9), p = 0.037], left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 35% [OR = 3.9 (1.5-10.4), p = 0.006] were associated with 90-day mortality. Furthermore, previous MI [OR = 4.0 (1.3-12.6), p = 0.019] was an independent predictor of 90-day mortality. Age [OR = 1.1 (1.03-1.2), p = 0.002], previous MI [OR = 2.2 (1.1-4.4), p = 0.034], angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker [OR = 0.5 (0.3-0.9), p = 0.028], and LVEF < 35% [OR = 4.3 (1.9-9.5), p < 0.001] were associated with 1-year mortality. Furthermore, previous MI [OR = 2.6 (1.1-6.5), p = 0.037], LVEF < 35% [OR = 4.7 (1.5-14.4), p = 0.007] and percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) or not [OR = 0.3 (0.1-0.9), p = 0.021] were independent predictors of 1-year mortality.
Conclusions
Previous MI, LVEF < 35% and PCI or not could predict 1-year mortality in advanced elderly patients with NSTE-ACS. Despite their elevated morbidities and complications, PCI was still beneficial for these patients.
Keywords: Acute coronary syndrome, Age, Outcome, Predictor
INTRODUCTION
Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a major cause of death, and the elderly with ACS have poorer outcomes in contrast with the younger patients.1-4 Despite the publication of ACS guidelines by the European Society of Cardiology and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, some difficulties and variations remain in the care of elderly patients with ACS.5-7 Some clinical trials have excluded patients with advanced age. Some of these trials suggest it is necessary to follow the guidelines, and others promote conservative treatment rather than standard ACS care for the elderly.8-10 Therefore, the optimum management protocols for the elderly with ACS remain the subject of ongoing debate.
The Taiwan ACS Full Spectrum Registry is a nationwide database used to assess real-world clinical practices and outcomes of patients with ACS in Taiwan.1,2 The present study included the non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients in this registry. We divided the patients by age and evaluated the treatment, complications and outcomes in short- and medium-term in different age groups. Furthermore, for the advanced elderly (≥ 75 years), we analyzed risk factors and standards of care to determine the predictors of poor outcomes.
METHODS
Study design
The present study was a national, multicenter, and observational design in a Taiwan nationwide registry.1,2 From October 2008 to January 2010, patients > 20 years of age, who fulfilled the criteria of NSTE-ACS at any of the 39 participating hospitals in Taiwan were included. The criteria included symptoms of typical chest pain or overwhelming shortness of breath, electrocardiogram showing normal findings or pathological Q wave, or persistent or dynamic electrocardiographic change of ST depression > 0.5 mm, or new deep T-wave inversion in more than 2 contiguous leads, and either rise or absence of rise of cardiac markers. The major bleeding was defined as overt clinical bleeding associated with a drop of hemoglobin greater than 5 g/dl, or hematocrit greater than 15%.
Statistical analysis
Continuous variables were shown as means ± standard deviations (SD), and categorical variables were shown as absolute numbers and percentage and compared by use of one-way ANOVA. For categorical variables, the Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was applied. Predictors of in-hospital, 90-day and 1-year mortality were determined by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed by considering all variables that were identified as p ≤ 0.1 in the univariate analysis. A p value of < 0.05 was considered to indicate significance for all factors. All analyses were conducted with the use of SPSS software, version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
RESULTS
Clinical characteristics
In the present study, 1470 patients with NSTE-ACS were included. There were 93 patients (6%) in group I (< 45 years), 595 patients (41%) in group II (45-64 years), 386 patients (26%) in group III (65-74 years) and 396 patients (27%) in group IV (≥ 75 years). There was a significant difference in the sex ratio amongst the four groups; the male ratio was 93%, 81%, 65%, 59%, respectively, p < 0.001 (Table 1). There were significant differences among the four groups in the incidence of hypertension (41%, 69%, 76%, 82%, respectively, p < 0.001), dyslipidemia (44%, 51%, 45%, 42%, respectively, p = 0.037), diabetes (26%, 40%, 50%, 46%, respectively, p < 0.001) and smoking (82%, 61%, 42%, 39%, respectively, p < 0.001). There were significant differences among the four groups in the incidence of previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (0%, 3%, 8%, 6%, respectively, p = 0.03), previous stroke or transient ischemia attack (2%, 7%, 14%, 21%, respectively, p < 0.001), and Killip Class ≥ II (17%, 19%, 27%, 34%, respectively, p < 0.001). There were significant differences among the four groups in body mass index (BMI) (29 ± 4, 26 ± 4, 25 ± 4, 24 ± 4 kg/m2, respectively, p < 0.001), peak creatine kinase (718 ± 772, 667 ± 1662, 565 ± 966, 437 ± 1207 U/L, respectively, p = 0.03), creatinine (1.1 ± 1.0, 1.9 ± 2.5, 2.1 ± 2.2, 1.8 ± 1.5 mg/dl, respectively, p < 0.001), total cholesterol (196 ± 48, 185 ± 45, 173 ± 41, 165 ± 52 mg/dl, respectively, p < 0.001), high-density cholesterol (34 ± 7, 38 ± 11, 40 ± 17, 43 ± 33 mg/dl, respectively, p < 0.001), low-density lipoprotein (127 ± 42, 116 ± 40, 109 ± 38, 96 ± 32 mg/dl, respectively, p < 0.001), triglyceride (233 ± 157, 168 ± 125, 135 ± 84, 113 ± 70 mg/dl, respectively, p < 0.001), and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) score (2.5 ± 1.1, 2.7 ± 1.1, 3.8 ± 1.1, 3.8 ± 1.1, respectively, p < 0.001).
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
| Number (%) or mean ± SD | Group I (n = 93) | Group II (n = 595) | Group III (n = 386) | Group IV (n = 396) | p-value |
| Age (years) | 39 ± 4 | 56 ± 5 | 69 ± 3 | 81 ± 4 | < 0.001 |
| Sex, male | 86 (93%) | 483 (81%) | 249 (65%) | 232 (59%) | < 0.001 |
| Hypertension | 38 (41%) | 405 (69%) | 288 (76%) | 322 (82%) | < 0.001 |
| *Dyslipidemia | 40 (44%) | 301 (51%) | 172 (45%) | 164 (42%) | 0.037 |
| Diabetes | 24 (26%) | 237 (40%) | 189 (50%) | 180 (46%) | < 0.001 |
| Smoking | 75 (82%) | 360 (61%) | 159 (42%) | 151 (39%) | < 0.001 |
| Previous MI | 7 (8%) | 72 (12%) | 55 (14%) | 66 (17%) | 0.85 |
| Previous PCI | 13 (14%) | 124 (21%) | 102 (26%) | 122 (31%) | 0.27 |
| Previous CABG | 0 (0%) | 20 (3%) | 30 (8%) | 22 (6%) | 0.03 |
| Previous stroke/TIA | 2 (2%) | 39 (7%) | 55 (14%) | 81 (21%) | < 0.001 |
| Killip class ≥ II | 16 (17%) | 113 (19%) | 106 (27%) | 133 (34%) | < 0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 29 ± 4 | 26 ± 4 | 25 ± 4 | 24 ± 4 | < 0.001 |
| Peak CK (U/L) | 718 ± 772 | 667 ± 1662 | 565 ± 966 | 437 ± 1207 | 0.03 |
| Creatinine (mg/dl) | 1.1 ± 1.0 | 1.9 ± 2.5 | 2.1 ± 2.2 | 1.8 ± 1.5 | < 0.001 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dl) | 196 ± 48 | 185 ± 45 | 173 ± 41 | 165 ± 52 | < 0.001 |
| HDL (mg/dl) | 34 ± 7 | 38 ± 11 | 40 ± 17 | 43 ± 33 | < 0.001 |
| LDL (mg/dl) | 127 ± 42 | 116 ± 40 | 109 ± 38 | 96 ± 32 | < 0.001 |
| TG (mg/dl) | 233 ± 157 | 168 ± 125 | 135 ± 84 | 113 ± 70 | < 0.001 |
| TIMI score | 2.5 ± 1.1 | 2.7 ± 1.1 | 3.8 ± 1.1 | 3.8 ± 1.1 | < 0.001 |
| LVEF < 35% | 6 (6%) | 21 (4%) | 22 (6%) | 30 (8%) | 0.07 |
BMI, body mass index; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; CK, creatine kinase; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDC, low-density lipoprotein; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; TG, triglyceride; TIA, transient ischemic attack; TIMI, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction.
*Dyslipidemia, only record yes if patient has been diagnosed with dyslipidemia and/or taking lipid lowering therapy prior to admission to hospital.
Group I (< 45 years); Group II (45-64 years); Group III (65-74 years); Group IV (≥ 75 years).
There were significant differences among the four groups in the incidence of drug treatments in the hospital, including aspirin (94%, 89%, 87%, 83%, respectively, p = 0.02), beta-blockers (53%, 45%, 42%, 38%, respectively, p = 0.049), statins (54%, 49%, 42%, 35%, respectively, p < 0.001), low molecular weight heparin (48%, 39%, 31%, 32%, respectively, p = 0.003), glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists (16%, 8%, 6%, 5%, respectively, p = 0.001) and adoption of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (79%, 79%, 73%, 71%, respectively, p = 0.01) (Table 2).
Table 2. In-hospital treatments.
| Variables (n, %) | Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | p-value |
| Aspirin | 87 (94%) | 529 (89%) | 337 (87%) | 330 (83%) | 0.02 |
| Clopidogrel | 89 (96%) | 547 (92%) | 348 (90%) | 353 (89%) | 0.16 |
| ACEI or ARB | 44 (47%) | 261 (44%) | 147 (38%) | 146 (37%) | 0.054 |
| Beta-blockers | 49 (53%) | 265 (45%) | 160 (42%) | 152 (38%) | 0.049 |
| Statins | 50 (54%) | 294 (49%) | 160 (42%) | 138 (35%) | < 0.001 |
| LMWH | 45 (48%) | 229 (39%) | 121 (31%) | 127 (32%) | 0.003 |
| UFH | 58 (62%) | 363 (61%) | 232 (60%) | 227 (57%) | 0.65 |
| GpIIb/IIIa | 15 (16%) | 50 (8%) | 24 (6%) | 18 (5%) | 0.001 |
| PCI | 73 (79%) | 470 (79%) | 281 (73%) | 279 (71%) | 0.01 |
| Thrombolysis | 1 (1%) | 4 (1%) | 1 (0.3%) | 2 (1%) | 0.55 |
| CABG | 2 (2%) | 25 (4%) | 27 (7%) | 18 (5%) | 0.12 |
ACEI, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; GpIIb/IIIa, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists; LMWH, low molecular weight heparin; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; UFH, unfractionated heparin.
Clinical outcomes
There are significant differences among the four groups in the incidence of cardiogenic shock (4%, 1%, 3%, 4%, respectively, p = 0.037), 90-day mortality (0%, 1%, 4%, 8%, respectively, p < 0.001) and 1-year mortality (1%, 2%, 8%, 18%, respectively, p < 0.001); however, there was no difference among the four groups for in-hospital mortality (0%, 1%, 1%, 2%, respectively, p = 0.30) (Table 3).
Table 3. Complications and outcomes.
| Variables (n, %) | Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | p-value |
| Cardiogenic shock | 4 (4%) | 7 (1%) | 12 (3%) | 15 (4%) | 0.037 |
| Stroke/TIA | 2 (2%) | 2 (0.3%) | 1 (0.3%) | 4 (1%) | 0.10 |
| Major bleeding | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.2%) | 1 (0.3%) | 6 (2%) | 0.05 |
| In-hospital mortality | 0 (0%) | 3 (1%) | 4 (1%) | 6 (2%) | 0.30 |
| 90-day mortality | 0 (0%) | 6 (1%) | 17 (4%) | 30 (8%) | < 0.001 |
| 1-year mortality | 1 (1%) | 13 (2%) | 29 (8%) | 71 (18%) | < 0.001 |
TIA, transient ischemic attack.
Table 4 showed the results of logistic regression. There was no case of in-hospital mortality and 90-day mortality in group I, so we set group II as reference, and compared that group with groups III and IV. There were no significant differences of in-hospital mortality [group III versus group II: odds ratio (OR) = 2.1 (0.5-9.3), p = 0.34; group IV versus group II: OR = 3.0 (0.8-12.2), p = 0.12]. In 90-day mortality, there were significantly higher incidences of mortality in group III and group IV, compared with group II [group III versus group II: OR = 4.5 (1.8-11.6), p = 0.002, group IV versus group II: OR = 8.1 (3.3-19.5), p < 0.001]. In 1-year mortality, there were significantly higher incidences of mortality in group III and group IV compared with group II [group III versus group II: OR = 3.6 (1.9-7.1), p < 0.001, group IV versus group II: OR = 9.8 (5.3-17.9), p < 0.001]. We also adjusted variables including sex, hypertension, high-density cholesterol, low-density cholesterol, triglyceride, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoking, BMI, aspirin, clopidogrel, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta-blockers, statins, and TIMI risk score and re-analyzed the results. There were no significant differences between group III and group II in 90-day mortality [OR = 2.7 (0.7-10.3), p = 0.15] and 1-year mortality [OR = 2.0 (0.74-5.2), p = 0.18]. However, Group IV had significantly higher incidences of 90-day mortality [OR = 4.5 (1.2-16.3), p = 0.023] and 1-year mortality [OR = 4.9 (2.0-12.3), p = 0.001] compared with group II.
Table 4. Age-group as a predictor of in-hospital, 90-day and 1-year mortality.
| Unadjusted | Adjusted | |||||
| OR | 95% CI | p-value | OR | 95% CI | p-value | |
| In-hospital mortality | ||||||
| Group I | NA | NA | ||||
| Group II | Reference | – | – | Reference | – | – |
| Group III | 2.1 | 0.5-9.3 | 0.34 | 0.47 | 0.03-8.3 | 0.61 |
| Group IV | 3 | 0.8-12.2 | 0.12 | 0.55 | 0.04-7.9 | 0.66 |
| 90-day mortality | ||||||
| Group I | NA | NA | ||||
| Group II | Reference | – | – | Reference | – | – |
| Group III | 4.5 | 1.8-11.6 | 0.002 | 2.7 | 0.7-10.3 | 0.15 |
| Group IV | 8.1 | 3.3-19.5 | < 0.001 | 4.5 | 1.2-16.3 | 0.023 |
| 1-year mortality | ||||||
| Group I | 0.49 | 0.06-3.8 | 0.49 | 1.3 | 0.15-11.0 | 0.82 |
| Group II | Reference | – | – | Reference | – | – |
| Group III | 3.6 | 1.9-7.1 | < 0.001 | 2 | 0.74-5.2 | 0.18 |
| Group IV | 9.8 | 5.3-17.9 | < 0.001 | 4.9 | 2.0-12.3 | 0.001 |
NA, not applicable because of limited numbers. Adjusted for sex, hypertension, high-density cholesterol, low-density cholesterol, triglyceride, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoking, body mass index, aspirin, clopidogrel, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta-blockers, statins and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction score.
Predictors of outcome in Group IV
Table 5 shows the results of predictors of mortality in group IV in univariate logistic regression. There were no significant predictors of in-hospital mortality. Previous myocardial infarction (MI) [OR = 3.3 (1.1-9.8), p = 0.035], statins [OR = 0.35 (0.1-0.9), p = 0.037], and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 35% [OR = 3.9 (1.5-10.4), p = 0.006] were associated with 90-day mortality. Age [OR = 1.1 (1.03-1.2), p = 0.002], previous MI [OR = 2.2 (1.1-4.4), p = 0.034], angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker [OR = 0.5 (0.3-0.9), p = 0.028], and LVEF < 35% [OR = 4.3 (1.9-9.5), p < 0.001] were associated with 1-year mortality. Table 6 shows the results of predictors of 90-day and 1-year mortality in group IV in multivariate analysis. Previous MI [OR = 4.0 (1.3-12.6), p = 0.019] was an independent predictor of 90-day mortality. Furthermore, previous MI [OR = 2.6 (1.1-6.5), p = 0.037], LVEF < 35% [OR = 4.7 (1.5-14.4), p = 0.007] and PCI or not [OR = 0.3 (0.1-0.9), p = 0.021] were independent predictors of 1-year mortality.
Table 5. Predictors of in-hospital, 90-day and 1-year mortality in Group IV (univariate analysis).
| Variables | In-hospital | 90-day | 1-year | |||
| OR (95% CI) | p-value | OR (95% CI) | p-value | OR (95% CI) | p-value | |
| Age (years) | 1.1 (0.9-1.3) | 0.37 | 1.0 (1.0-1.1) | 0.35 | 1.1 (1.03-1.2) | 0.002 |
| Previous MI | NA | 3.3 (1.1-9.8) | 0.035 | 2.2 (1.1-4.4) | 0.034 | |
| Previous PCI | 1.5 (0.1-16.8) | 0.74 | 1.9 (0.6-6.4) | 0.28 | 1.3 (0.6-2.7) | 0.46 |
| Diabetes | 0.2 (0.03-2.0) | 0.19 | 0.9 (0.4-1.9) | 0.8 | 1.1 (0.7-1.9) | 0.67 |
| ACEI or ARB | 0.3 (0.04-2.9) | 0.32 | 0.9 (0.4-1.9) | 0.68 | 0.5 (0.3-0.9) | 0.028 |
| Beta-blockers | 0.3 (0.04-2.7) | 0.3 | 0.7 (0.3-1.5) | 0.33 | 0.8 (0.5-1.4) | 0.38 |
| Statins | 1.9 (0.4-9.5) | 0.44 | 0.35 (0.1-0.9) | 0.037 | 0.6 (0.3-1.0) | 0.07 |
| LVEF < 35% | 5.9 (0.95-36.9) | 0.06 | 3.9 (1.5-10.4) | 0.006 | 4.3 (1.9-9.5) | < 0.001 |
| PCI | 2.1 (0.2-18) | 0.51 | 0.6 (0.3-1.2) | 0.14 | 0.6 (0.4-1.0) | 0.06 |
| Creatinine | 1.2 (0.9-1.6) | 0.19 | 1.0 (0.8-1.3) | 0.86 | 1.1 (0.9-1.3) | 0.29 |
| CK | 0.99 (0.99-1.0) | 0.96 | 0.99 (0.99-1.0) | 0.94 | 0.99 (0.99-1.0) | 0.66 |
| Aspirin and clopidogrel | 1.4 (0.2-12.3) | 0.75 | 1.44 (0.5-3.9) | 0.47 | 1.0 (0.5-1.8) | 0.90 |
ACEI, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; CK, creatine kinase; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; NA, not applicable because of limited numbers; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.
Table 6. Independent predictors of 90-day and 1-year mortality in Group IV (multivariate analysis).
| 90-day | OR (95% CI) | p-value |
| Previous MI | 4.0 (1.3-12.6) | 0.019 |
| Statins | 0.3 (0.1-1.2) | 0.09 |
| LVEF < 35% | 1.3 (0.3-5.4) | 0.73 |
| 1-year | OR (95% CI) | p-value |
| Age (years) | 1.1 (1.0-1.2) | 0.28 |
| Previous MI | 2.6 (1.1-6.5) | 0.037 |
| ACEI or ARB | 0.4 (0.1-1.2) | 0.09 |
| Statins | 0.6 (0.2-1.8) | 0.39 |
| LVEF < 35% | 4.7 (1.5-14.4) | 0.007 |
| PCI | 0.3 (0.1-0.9) | 0.021 |
ACEI, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.
DISCUSSION
The median age of patients in most NSTE-ACS clinical trials is around 65-68 years, which is almost similar to this study (median age 66 years).6,11 In worldwide registries data, the incidence of the patients ≥ 75 years was 32% in the Grace registry, 37% in the NRMI registry, 38% in the CRUSADE registry, and 27-34% in European registries.6,12,13 In the present study, 27% of the patients are ≥ 75 years of age, slightly lesser than those in worldwide ACS registries. Older patients with NSTE-ACS usually had poorer outcomes than the younger patients because they are always associated with more comorbidities and complications.6,13
The CRUSADE registry showed the incidences of bleeding, congestive heart failure and recurrent myocardial infarction were higher in patients ≥ 75 years.13 In the present study, the advanced elderly had higher incidences of hypertension, diabetes, previous CABG, previous stroke/transient ischemic attack, Killip Class ≥ II, lower BMI, poor renal function and higher TIMI score but lower incidences of male gender, smokers and dyslipidemia. In the VIGOUR and GRACE registries, the in-hospital mortality rates for patients > 65 years was 1%, but was 10% for patients > 85 years.6,12 The higher risk for the elderly continued from 30 days to 1 year; the 1-year mortality in the GRACE registry was 15% in patients with 75-84 years and 25% in patients > 85 years.12 In the present study, the in hospital mortality rate was 1% for patients with age of 65-74 years and 2% for patients ≥ 75 years. Those patients ≥ 75 years had 8% and 18% for their 90-day and 1-year mortality rate, respectively, which were higher compared with patients 45-64 years of age. Furthermore, patients ≥ 75 years had significantly higher 90-day and 1-year mortality rate compared with patients 45-64 years of age, even after variables adjustment.
Evidence from several observational trials suggested that older patients received fewer evidence-based ACS therapies and had higher mortality rates than the younger patients.14-16 Avezum et al. showed that aspirin, beta-blockers, thrombolytic therapy, statins, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were prescribed less to elderly patients, and Alexander et al. presented that elderly patients received less clopidogrel and lipid-lowering therapy.15,16 The present study also showed that the usage of aspirin, beta-blockers, statins, low molecular weight heparin, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists was significantly less in the advanced elderly. Intensive lipid lowering after ACS has a mortality benefit; furthermore, the Heart protector study concluded that elderly patients (≥ 75 years) treated with statins had the same absolute risk reduction in coronary events and mortality as younger patients.17,18 In patients > 75 years of age in the present study, statin usage was associated with lower incidence of 90-day mortality. Furthermore, statin usage could nearly predict 90-day mortality (p = 0.09).
In clinical practice, elderly patients are more often managed without invasive care such as diagnostic catheterization and PCI, even if there are no apparent contraindications. The CRUSADE study showed that for each 10 years of advancing age, there was a 20% reduced likelihood of invasive care.13 Current estimates from community populations for invasive care in patients < 65 versus ≥ 85 years of age are as follows: CRUSADE, 57% versus 21%; NRMI, 65% versus 13%; and GRACE, 69% versus 18%.6,12,13 In the present study, the incidence of patient ≥ 75 years who underwent PCI was 71%, which was higher than in other registries. In patients ≥ 75 years old, PCI or not could predict 1-year mortality. Therefore, the present study and previous studies suggested that an invasive strategy was favored to reduce the short to medium term mortality in advanced elderly patients without contraindications.19,20
Study limitation
The present study should define the causes of mortality or endpoint in the registry. However, the exact causes of mortality were unavailable in the present registry.
CONCLUSIONS
Previous MI, LVEF < 35% and PCI or not could predict 1-year mortality in advanced elderly patients with NSTE-ACS. Despite their high morbidities and complications, PCI was still beneficial in this patient population.
REFERENCES
- 1.Chiang FT, Shyu KG, Wu CJ, et al. Predictors of one-year outcomes in the Taiwan acute coronary syndrome full spectrum registry. J Formos Med Assoc. 2014;113:794–802. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2013.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Shyu KG, Wu CJ, Mar GY, et al. Clinical characteristics, management and in-hospital outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndrome-observation from the Taiwan ACS full spectrum registry. Acta Cardio Sin. 2011;27:135–144. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Eagle KA, Lim MJ, Dabbous OH, et al. A validated prediction model for all forms of acute coronary syndrome: estimating the risk of 6-month postdischarge death in an international registry. JAMA. 2004;22:2727–2733. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.22.2727. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Rosengren A, Wallentin L, Simoons M, et al. Age, clinical presentation, and outcome of acute coronary syndromes in the Euro heart acute coronary syndrome survey. Heart. 2006;27:789–795. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hamm CW, Bassand JP, Agewall S, et al. ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2011;32:2999–3054. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Alexander KP, Newby LK, Cannon CP, et al. Acute coronary care in the elderly, part I non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology. Circulation. 2007;115:2549–2569. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.182615. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Wright RS, Anderson JL, Adams CD, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in collaboration with the American Academy of Family Physicians, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:215–367. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.02.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Fox KA, Goodman SG, Klein W, et al. Management of acute coronary syndromes. Variations in practice and outcome; findings from the global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE). Eur Heart J. 2002;23:1177–1189. doi: 10.1053/euhj.2001.3081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mandelzweig L, Battler A, Boyko V, et al. The second Euro Heart Survey on acute coronary syndromes: characteristics, treatment, and outcome of patients with ACS in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin in 2004. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:2285–2293. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehl196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Jha AK, Li Z, Orav EJ, Epstein AM. Care in U.S. hospitals--the hospital quality alliance program. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:265–274. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa051249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kandzari DE, Roe MT, Chen AY, et al. Influence of clinical trial enrollment on the quality of care and outcomes for patients with non ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J. 2005;149:474–481. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.11.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.GRACE Investigators. Rationale and design of the GRACE (global registry of acute coronary events) project: a multinational registry of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J. 2001;141:190–199. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2001.112404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bhatt DL, Roe MT, Peterson ED, et al. CRUSADE Investigators. Utilization of early invasive management strategies for high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative. JAMA. 2004;292:2096–2104. doi: 10.1001/jama.292.17.2096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Gale CP, Cattle BA, Woolston A, et al. Resolving inequalities in care? Reduced mortality in the elderly after acute coronary syndromes. The Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project 2003-2010. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:630–639. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Avezum A, Makdisse M, Spencer F, et al. Impact of age on management and outcome of acute coronary syndrome: observations from the global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE). Am Heart J. 2005;149:67–73. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Alexander KP, Roe MT, Chen AY, et al. Evolution in cardiovascular care for elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE National Quality Improvement Initiative. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:1479–1487. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.05.084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1495–1504. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa040583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360:7–22. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Bauer T, Koeth O, Jünger C, et al. Effect of an invasive strategy on in-hospital outcome in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:2873–2878. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehm464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Tegn N, Abdelnoor M, Aaberge L, et al. 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. Lancet. 2016;387:1057–1065. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01166-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]