RESUMO
Os idosos representam significativa parcela da população em nosso País e a população com idade > ou igual a 90 anos triplicou nas últimas três décadas. Este estudo retrospectivo teve como objetivo analisar os resultados da intervenção percutânea em pacientes nonagenários. Método: No total, foram avaliados, retrospectivamente, 31 pacientes nonagenários (G1), submetidos a tratamento coronário percutâneo, tratados entre janeiro de 1995 e janeiro de 2009. Esses pacientes foram comparados a outros 6.222 pacientes com idade < 80 anos (G2), tratados nesse mesmo período. Foram avaliadas as características clínicas, angiográficas e do procedimento, assim como os eventos cardíacos adversos maiores (ECAM) iniciais e tardios (óbito, acidente vascular cerebral, infarto do miocárdio, isquemia recorrente). Resultados: Os pacientes nonagenários apresentaram maior prevalência de diabetes, angina instável, comorbidades cronicas, doença coronária triarterial e fração de ejeção...
BACKGROUND: Elderly people represent a significant part of the Brazilian population and the population > 90 years has tripled in the past three decades. This retrospective study was aimed at analyzing the results of percutaneous coronary intervention in ninety-year-old patients. METHOD: Overall, 31 ninety-year-old patients (G1) undergoing percutaneous coronary treatment from January 1995 to January 2009 were retrospectively evaluated. These patients were compared to 6,222 patients < 80 years of age (G2), treated within the same period. Clinical, angiographic and procedure characteristics were assessed as well as early and late major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (death, stroke, myocardial infarction, recurrent ischemia). RESULTS: Ninety-yearold patients had a greater prevalence of diabetes, unstable angina, chronic comorbidities, three vessel coronary disease and left ventricular ejection fraction < 50%. Procedure success was different between both groups (87% vs. 95.1%; P = 0.049), as well as the incidence of in-hospital death (6.4% vs. 0.3%; P = 0.022) and acute myocardial infarction (6.4% vs. 3.6%; P = 0.035). In the late follow-up, there were significant differences in survival free from MACE (68% vs. 91%; P < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction < 50% (RR 1.08, IC 0.39-2.99; P = 0.022), > 2 vessel disease (RR 1.82, IC 1.04-3.19; P = 0.011), left main coronary artery lesion (RR 2.98, IC 0.97-9.17; P = 0.001), presence of unstable angina (RR 2.48, IC 0.97-9.17; P = 0.0013) and diabetes (RR 2.35, IC 1.21-4.55; P = 0.0015) were MACE predicting variables. CONCLUSION: Ninety-year-old patients had a higher incidence of cardiovascular events than younger patients. However, when the technique is feasible and patients have good clinical condition, percutaneous coronary intervention may be effectively used with an acceptable safety margin.