Background: It is unclear whether the benefits of an early invasive strategy (EIS) in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) equally apply to younger and older individuals. Elderly patients are generally less likely to undergo EIS when compared with younger patients.
Objectives: We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the benefit of an EIS versus a selectively invasive strategy (SIS) in patients with NSTEACS. We tested the hypothesis that the magnitude of benefit of an EIS over a SIS mainly applies to older individuals.
Methods: We extracted data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified through search methodology filters. The primary outcome of the analysis was the composite of all-cause death and myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary outcomes were death and MI taken alone and re-hospitalization.
Results: Nine trials (n = 9,400 patients) were eligible. The incidence of the composite end-point of MI and all-cause death was 16.0% with the EIS and 18.3% with the SIS (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76-0.95). The incidence of MI was 8.4% with the EIS and 10.9% with the SIS (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66-0.87). Similar results were obtained for rehospitalization (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55-0.90). The incidence of all-cause death did not differ between the two groups. The EIS reduced the composite end-point and re-hospitalization to a greater extent in elderly than in younger patients (P for interaction = 0.044 and <0.0001, respectively). These findings were confirmed in meta-regression analyses.
Conclusions: In patients with NSTEACS, a routine EIS reduces the risk of rehospitalization and the composite end point of recurrent MI and death to a greater extent in elderly than in younger individuals.
Keywords: acute coronary syndrome; early invasive strategy; meta-analysis; percutaneous coronary intervention; prognosis.
Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.