Sociedad Americana de Hirudoterapia

Invasive vs. conservative management of older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: individual patient data meta-analysis

Meta-analysis published in European heart journal (2024)

Última actualización: June 18, 2026Revisado por: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisEnsayos clínicosKotanidis CP et al. · European heart journal, 2024

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) are less likely to receive guideline-recommended care including coronary angiography and revascularization. Evidence-based recommendations regarding interventional management strategies in this patient cohort are scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of routine invasive vs. conservative management of NSTEACS by using individual patient data (IPD) from all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including older patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus were searched between 1 January 2010 and 11 September 2023. RCTs investigating routine invasive and conservative strategies in persons >70 years old with NSTEACS were included. Observational studies or trials involving populations outside the target range were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year. One-stage IPD meta-analyses were adopted by use of random-effects and fixed-effect Cox models. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023379819). RESULTS: Six eligible studies were identified including 1479 participants. The primary endpoint occurred in 181 of 736 (24.5%) participants in the invasive management group compared with 215 of 743 (28.9%) participants in the conservative management group with a hazard ratio (HR) from random-effects model of 0.87 (95% CI 0.63-1.22; P = .43). The hazard for MI at 1 year was significantly lower in the invasive group compared with the conservative group (HR from random-effects model 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.87; P = .006). Similar results were seen for urgent revascularization (HR from random-effects model 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.95; P = .037). There was no significant difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found that routine invasive treatment for NSTEACS in older patients reduces the risk of a composite of all-cause mortality and MI within 1 year compared with conservative management. However, there is convincing evidence that invasive treatment significantly lowers the risk of repeat MI or urgent revascularisation. Further evidence is needed from ongoing larger clinical trials.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal ArticleMeta-Analysis
Indexed MeSH termsHumansConservative TreatmentAcute Coronary SyndromeAgedPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicMyocardial RevascularizationCoronary AngiographyNon-ST Elevated Myocardial InfarctionFemale

Resumen

Older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) are less likely to receive guideline-recommended care including coronary angiography and revascularization.

Por qué esto importa para la hirudoterapia

This individual patient data meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials (1,479 participants >70 years) compared routine invasive versus conservative management of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. No significant difference was found in the composite primary endpoint of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction at one year (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63–1.22), though invasive management significantly reduced repeat MI (HR 0.62) and urgent revascularization (HR 0.41). This article has no connection to hirudotherapy, leeches, or the leech secretome, and no relevance to ASH's domain.

Citación

Invasive vs. conservative management of older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: individual patient data meta-analysis

Kotanidis CP et al. · European heart journal, 2024

Contexto clínico relacionado

Añadido a la biblioteca ASH: May 27, 2026 · Última actualización del sitio: June 18, 2026

Este sitio web proporciona información educativa y no constituye consejo médico, diagnóstico ni recomendaciones de tratamiento. La terapia con sanguijuelas medicinales conlleva riesgos clínicamente significativos y debe ser realizada únicamente por profesionales calificados bajo protocolos aprobados institucionalmente. La autorización 510(k) de la FDA para sanguijuelas medicinales se limita a indicaciones específicas; las discusiones sobre uso investigativo y fuera de indicación se señalan correspondientemente. Para orientación médica específica, consulte a un profesional de salud calificado.