Effect of Routine Invasive vs Conservative Strategy in Older Adults With Frailty and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

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. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03208153.

[Risk factors for in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction during the COVID-19 outbreak]. / Factores de riesgo de muerte hospitalaria en pacientes con infarto agudo de miocardio durante la pandemia de la COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Despite advances in treatment, patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) still exhibit unfavorable short- and long-term prognoses. In addition, there is scant evidence about the clinical outcomes of patients with AMI and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this study was to describe the clinical presentation, complications, and risk factors for mortality in patients admitted for AMI during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, cohort study included all consecutive patients with AMI who underwent coronary angiography in a 30-day period corresponding chronologically with the COVID-19 outbreak (March 15 to April 15, 2020). Clinical presentations and outcomes were compared between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. The effect of COVID-19 on mortality was assessed by propensity score matching and with a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: In total, 187 patients were admitted for AMI, 111 with ST-segment elevation AMI and 76 with non-ST-segment elevation AMI. Of these, 32 (17%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. GRACE score, Killip-Kimball classification, and several inflammatory markers were significantly higher in COVID-19-positive patients. Total and cardiovascular mortality were also significantly higher in COVID-19-positive patients (25% vs 3.8% [P < .001] and 15.2% vs 1.8% [P = .001], respectively). GRACE score > 140 (OR, 23.45; 95%CI, 2.52-62.51; P = .005) and COVID-19 (OR, 6.61; 95%CI, 1.82-24.43; P = .02) were independent predictors of in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: During this pandemic, a high GRACE score and COVID-19 were independent risk factors associated with higher in-hospital mortality.Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.

The Effect of Age on Mortality in Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis With 611,583 Subjects.

OBJECTIVES: Initial data on COVID-19 infection has pointed out a special vulnerability of older adults. DESIGN: We performed a meta-analysis with available national reports on May 7, 2020 from China, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, and New York State. Analyses were performed by a random effects model, and sensitivity analyses were performed for the identification of potential sources of heterogeneity. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: COVID-19-positive patients reported in literature and national reports. MEASURES: All-cause mortality by age. RESULTS: A total of 611,1583 subjects were analyzed and 141,745 (23.2%) were aged ≥80 years. The percentage of octogenarians was different in the 5 registries, the lowest being in China (3.2%) and the highest in the United Kingdom and New York State. The overall mortality rate was 12.10% and it varied widely between countries, the lowest being in China (3.1%) and the highest in the United Kingdom (20.8%) and New York State (20.99%). Mortality was <1.1% in patients aged <50 years and it increased exponentially after that age in the 5 national registries. As expected, the highest mortality rate was observed in patients aged ≥80 years. All age groups had significantly higher mortality compared with the immediately younger age group. The largest increase in mortality risk was observed in patients aged 60 to 69 years compared with those aged 50 to 59 years (odds ratio 3.13, 95% confidence interval 2.61-3.76). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This meta-analysis with more than half million of COVID-19 patients from different countries highlights the determinant effect of age on mortality with the relevant thresholds on age >50 years and, especially, >60 years. Older adult patients should be prioritized in the implementation of preventive measures.