פוסט זה זמין גם ב:
עברית
Juan Sanchis, PhD1Héctor Bueno, PhD2Gema Miñana, PhD1; et al
Key Points 
Question Does a routine invasive strategy improve outcomes in older adults with frailty and non–ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (NSTEMI)?
Findings In this prematurely terminated randomized clinical trial of 167 older adult patients with frailty and NSTEMI, a routine invasive vs conservative strategy did not significantly increase the number of days alive and out of the hospital from discharge to 1 year. Although the study is small, there is no hint that increasing the number of patients would have confirmed the invasive management superiority hypothesis, as shown in previous studies in older patients where frailty status had not been considered.
Meaning In this randomized clinical trial including frail older patients with NSTEMI, a routine invasive strategy did not increase the number of days alive out of hospital during the first year; results fuel the development of a larger trial with the opposite hypothesis—that is, a policy of watchful observation and careful evaluation may be of choice for frail older patients with NSTEMI.
Importance To our knowledge, no randomized clinical trial has compared the invasive and conservative strategies in frail, older patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).
Objective To compare outcomes of invasive and conservative strategies in frail, older patients with NSTEMI at 1 year.
Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted at 13 Spanish hospitals between July 7, 2017, and January 9, 2021, and included 167 older adult (≥70 years) patients with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥4) and NSTEMI. Data analysis was performed from April 2022 to June 2022.
Interventions Patients were randomized to routine invasive (coronary angiography and revascularization if feasible; n = 84) or conservative (medical treatment with coronary angiography for recurrent ischemia; n = 83) strategy.
Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was the number of days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH) from discharge to 1 year. The coprimary end point was the composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or postdischarge revascularization.
Results The study was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic when 95% of the calculated sample size had been enrolled. Among the 167 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 86 (5) years, and mean (SD) Clinical Frailty Scale score was 5 (1). While not statistically different, DAOH were about 1 month (28 days; 95% CI, −7 to 62) greater for patients managed conservatively (312 days; 95% CI, 289 to 335) vs patients managed invasively (284 days; 95% CI, 255 to 311; P = .12). A sensitivity analysis stratified by sex did not show differences. In addition, we found no differences in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.74-2.85; P = .28). There was a 28-day shorter survival in the invasive vs conservatively managed group (95% CI, −63 to 7 days; restricted mean survival time analysis). Noncardiac reasons accounted for 56% of the readmissions. There were no differences in the number of readmissions or days spent in the hospital after discharge between groups. Neither were there differences in the coprimary end point of ischemic cardiac events (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.54-1.57; P = .78).
Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of NSTEMI in frail older patients, there was no benefit to a routine invasive strategy in DAOH during the first year. Based on these findings, a policy of medical management and watchful observation is recommended for older patients with frailty and NSTEMI.
