IMR Press / RCM / Volume 22 / Issue 3 / DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2203084
Open Access Review
Non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction in the elderly
Show Less
1 Cardiology Department, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28006 Madrid, IIS-IP, CIBER-CV, Spain
*Correspondence: pablo_diez_villanueva@hotmail.com (Pablo Díez-Villanueva)
These authors contributed equally.
Academic Editor: Peter A. McCullough
Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 22(3), 779–786; https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2203084
Submitted: 29 June 2021 | Revised: 12 August 2021 | Accepted: 17 August 2021 | Published: 24 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Acute Coronary Syndromes in the Octogenarians)
Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Abstract

Ischemic heart disease constitutes the leading cause of death in Western countries. The general incidence of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), especially non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), is growing. Advanced age is both a strong risk factor for ACS and an independent predictor of poorer clinical outcomes. Management of this entity is often complex in the elderly, while special attention should be focused on comorbidities and geriatric conditions. This article aims to review clinical presentation, identification and management of NSTEMI in the elderly population.

Keywords
Acute coronary syndrome
Elderly
Non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction
1. Introduction

Ischemic heart disease constitutes the leading cause of death in Western countries. Advanced age is both a strong risk factor for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and an independent predictor of poorer clinical outcomes [1]. Due to progressive ageing in our societies, the general incidence of ACS, especially non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), is growing. This article aims to provide a systematic and updated review on this topic, as shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Central illustration. Schematic representation of key components in management of non ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the elderly. Specific considerations regarding management of non STEMI elderly patients are remarked. Differences but also similarities with younger patients are presented. Concerning invasive approach, specific technical actions should be considered in order to provide greater benefits. Geriatric conditions should be early identified and treated. Elderly patients with NSTEMI should be treated as younger patients with regard to antithrombotic therapy or secondary prevention.

2. Management of NSTEMI in the elderly

Current European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend a prompt diagnosis and identification of NSTEMI patients in order to early initiate and provide the best treatment [2]. However, clinical presentation in the elderly is often atypical, thus high clinical suspicion is essential [2, 3]. The electrocardiogram still represents the first-line diagnosis tool in suspected ACS. A 12-lead electrocardiogram within the first 10 minutes of admission at emergency department/first contact in the pre-hospital setting is mandatory. A high level of clinical suspicion is required in patients presenting with signs or symptoms suggestive of ongoing myocardial ischemia or left bundle branch block [2]. Also, early measurement of cardiac troponin levels is recommended to identify patients with the highest risk. Importantly, however, interpretation of troponin levels in the elderly population may be challenging as concentrations may be different between young and older individuals and comorbidities, such as renal impairment, are common in the elderly [4]. Thus, recently suggested rule-in and rule-out algorithms should be used with especial caution in this population. It is also of importance to remark that there should not be differences regarding management according to sex, since gender-bias has been identified, as elderly women usually receive lower invasive treatment, antiplatelet drugs, and other secondary prevention medications [5, 6, 7, 8].

2.1 Risk assessment

Both ischaemic and haemorrhagic risk assessment are essential in management of elderly patients with NSTEMI. Quantitative assessment of ischaemic risk (using clinical scores) is superior to subjective clinical assessment. Accordingly, current European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend the utilization of validated prognosis scales [2]. The GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Event) score, which has been previously validated in the elderly population [9], provides not only in-hospital mortality risk, but also at 6 months, 1 year and 3 years follow-up. The combined risk of death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year is also assessed [10].

Major bleeding events are also related to an increase in mortality rates in NSTEMI patients. Moreover, age is an independent risk factor for both ischemic and haemorrhagic complications. Several bleeding risk scores have been developed in order to identify patients at highest risk. The CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines) bleeding score combines demographic, clinical and laboratory variables, though, predictable values on elderly population are not as accurate as in younger patients [11]. ARC-HBR scale (Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk) has been recently proposed as a useful tool to identify high bleeding risk patients [12]. Nevertheless, nowadays their use still lacks a strong recommendation (IIb class level recommendation). On the other hand, other scales have been proposed to identify patients with worse outcomes in the elderly NSTEMI population, though they have not been found to independently predict events [13].

Frailty is defined as a loss of biological reserve, leading to an impaired response to stressor events [14]. It is closely related with high mortality and worse outcomes in different clinical settings. There are two main approaches to the characterization of frailty: (1) frailty as a phenotype of poor physical function (physical frailty), and (2) frailty as the consequence of an accumulation of deficits [14]. Physical frailty can be defined as the presence of three or more of: unintentional weight loss, weakness, poor endurance and energy, low physical activity level or slowness, according to Fried et al. [15]. On the other hand, FRAIL (Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses, & Loss of Weight) scale is a simple-to-use tool that takes into consideration the following questions to the patient (adding one point to each of the following affirmative answers; frailty is diagnosed if 3 or more of the following criteria are met):

- Fatigue: do you feel tired most of the time?

- Resistance: by yourself and not using aids, do you have any difficulty walking up a flight of stairs without resting?

- Ambulation: by yourself and not using aids, do you have any difficulty walking 100 metres?

- At least 5 of the following: Arthritis, diabetes, angina/infarction, hypertension, stroke, asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, osteoporosis, colorectal cancer, skin cancer, depression and anxiety, dementia, leg ulcers.

- Weight loss: weight loss >5% in the past year.

FRAIL scale is highly recommended due to its simplicity and easy to interpret in the acute setting, and has been already validated the setting of ACS in the elderly [16].

2.2 Dual antiplatelet therapy

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the cornerstone of medical treatment in all NSTEMI patients, as it provides a reduction in events, although at the expense of an increase in bleeding events [17]. Individual and careful choice of both the agent and dosage is highly recommended, particularly in the elderly, as physiological changes associated with ageing, like multi-organ function impairment and drug interactions, may lead to an increase bleeding risk [18]. The use of newer and more potent P2Y12 inhibitors are recommended unless contraindicated in all ACS patients together with aspirin, also in the elderly. DAPT is recommended for one year after the index event, regardless of treatment strategy, as shown in Table 1 [19]. As a novelty, current guidelines do not recommend routine pre-treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor in patients in whom coronary anatomy is unknown, especially if an early coronary angiography is programmed [2].

Table 1. Antiplatelet drugs. Initial and maintenance dosages according to current clinical guidelines.
ASA (acetylsalicylic acid) Loading dose: 250–300 mg
Maintenance dose: 87–100 mg/day
P2Y12 INHIBITOR TICAGRELOR Loading dose: 180 mg
Maintenance dose: 90 mg twice/day
PRASUGREL Loading dose: 60 mg
Maintenance dose: 10 mg once a day *
Maintenance dose: 5 mg once a day if weight <60 kg or age >75 years
CLOPIDOGREL Loading dose: 300–600 mg
Maintenance dose: 75 mg/day
*Prasugrel 10 mg/day is not eligible for patients 75 years old.

Current guidelines also recommend prasugrel as the preferred P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for NSTEMI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to ISAR REACT 5 results [20]. However, regarding elderly patients, prasugrel showed an increased risk in fatal and life-threatening bleedings compared to clopidogrel in ACS patients over 75 years [21]. Thus, prasugrel 10 mg/day is actually not eligible for ACS patients 75 years old. On the other hand, half-dose prasugrel (5 mg/day) has been considered to be not superior in reducing ischemic rates in those ACS patients undergoing PCI in the Elderly in the ACS 2 trial, and the ESC 2020 guidelines include such recommendation [22]. Conversely, ticagrelor has been progressively introduced in this population showing better results in patients carefully selected despite a theoretical high bleeding risk profile [23]. In a substudy of the LONGEVO-SCA registry, nearly one every six octogenarian patients with NSTEMI were discharged with DAPT including ticagrelor. These patients were younger, with lower ischemic and haemorrhagic risks and fewer comorbidities than those discharged with aspirin and clopidogrel [24]. Bleeding rates at 6 months were lower than expected, although most patients receiving ticagrelor had a high PRECISE-DAPT score [25].

Last, but not least, clopidogrel is usually the P2Y12 inhibitor most often prescribed in the elderly [26]. As a matter of a fact, POPular-Age trial demonstrated that clopidogrel produced less bleeding events but comparable ischemic rates in NSTEMI patients >70 years old when compared with other potent P2Y12 inhibitors [27].

2.3 Anticoagulation

When NSTEMI is diagnosed, initiation of parenteral anticoagulation is recommended. In those patients remitted to PCI, unfractionated heparin is recommended. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) should be considered in those patients already pre-treated with LMWH. Alternatively, fondaparinux can be considered in cases of conservative treatment or transferral to a PCI hospital [2].

Atrial fibrillation (AF), deserves special attention in this clinical scenario due to its high prevalence in this patients. In NSTEMI patients with AF, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over warfarin/acenocumarol, unless valvular AF [28]. The default strategy proposed by the last ESC guidelines includes triple therapy (combination of aspirin + clopidogrel + DOAC) up to 1 week after revascularization followed by single antiplatelet therapy plus oral anticoagulation for one year after the index event. This strategy can be modified according to ischemic and bleeding risks profile, shortening or extending the duration of triple therapy accordingly [2]. On the other hand, and as later addressed in this paper, impact of geriatric syndromes in management of patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary disease, deserves special attention, as they actually impact on prognosis [29, 30]. In the elderly population, special attention should be paid on renal function and dosages should be modified accordingly.

3. Invasive strategy in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome.

The majority of elderly patients with NSTEMI should be treated with an invasive coronary angiography according to current ESC Guidelines [2]. An immediate invasive strategy or early invasive strategy is recommended in those patients with high or very high-risk criteria, respectively, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.Management according to risk criteria in NSTEMI. Adapted from 2020 ESC Guidelines (including level of recommendation).
Very high risk criteria High risk criteria
Haemodynamic instability/cardiogenic shock Established NSTEMI diagnosis
Life-threatening arrhythmias Dynamic new or presumably new contiguous ST/T segment changes
Recurrent/refractory chest pain despite medical treatment (symptomatic or silent)
Mechanical complications of MI GRACE risk score >140
Acute heart failure Resuscitated cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation or cardiogenic shock
ST-segment depression >1 mm/6 leads + ST-segment elevation in aVR and/or V1. Transient ST-segment elevation
Immediate invasive coronary angiography (<2 h) Early invasive strategy (<24 h)
IC IA
GRACE, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; MI, myocardial infarction.

Decision regarding invasive approach should be weighted after addressing the risks and benefits of myocardial revascularization. It also depends on comorbidities, cognitive status, functional impairment, frailty, and life expectancy. Of note, low rates of revascularization in the elderly population are continuously reported [31], though benefits of revascularization appear to be maintained at older ages as showed in several clinical trials [32, 33]. Table 3 (Ref. [34, 35, 36, 37]) summarizes clinical studies regarding invasive vs conservative management in NSTEMI elderly patients. Interestingly, when taking frailty into consideration, benefits of an invasive strategy in NSTEMI elderly patients is less clear [37]. The MOSCA-frail is an ongoing clinical trial that will specifically address the benefits of an invasive strategy in frail elderly patients with NSTEMI [38].

Table 3.Impact of invasive treatment in elderly patients with NSTEMI.
Size (n) Mean age (years) Female sex (%) Diabetes (%) Previous stroke Follow up Results
After Eighty [34] 457 84.8 51% 17% 15% 1.5 years Benefit of early invasive approach on the composite of myocardial infarction, need for urgent revascularization, stroke, and death.
MOSCA [35] 106 82 47% 46% 24% 2.5 years No differences in the rate of:
- All-cause mortality
- Reinfarction
- Readmission for cardiac cause
Italian Elderly ACS [36] 313 81.8 50% 40% 7.9% 1 year No differences in the primary endpoint of mortality, myocardial infarction, disabling stroke and repeat hospital stay for cardiovascular causes or bleeding.
LONGEVO-SCA [37] 531 84.3 38.7% 39.9% 15.2% 6 months Conservative strategy was associated with higher incidence of:
- Cardiac death
- Reinfarction
- New revascularization

Besides, there are some important technical aspects to consider when performing revascularization. First, radial artery access and drug eluting stents (DES) are highly recommended in the elderly, irrespective of clinical presentation or concomitant therapy [39]. In cases of high bleeding risk, DES and short duration of DAPT have been shown to be safe [40]. Regarding contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), its incidence is much higher in the elderly population. The risk of this complication should be assessed in all patients providing an adequate hydration status before coronary angiography, and special care should be taken in cases of chronic kidney disease [19]. Finally, but also of importance, proton pump inhibitors prescription should be considered [41].

Regarding surgical revascularization, 5–10% of NSTEMI patients require coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) [42]. Although CABG surgery can be performed successfully, a careful patient selection is recommended. The surgical risk for these patients is only acceptable in the absence of comorbidities, especially renal dysfunction, cerebrovascular disease or poor clinical status [43]. Age itself is a risk factor for perioperative stroke after CABG [44] whilst computed tomography (CT) scan screening of atheroma in the ascending aorta may be considered when addressing best surgical strategy in this population [45].

4. Geriatric syndromes

Geriatric syndromes are multifactorial conditions identified more commonly in older adults [46] (Fig. 2). Due to its great impact on morbidity and mortality, assessment of frailty and other geriatric syndromes is essential [14]. Frailty has been identified as a decisive issue in clinical decision-making. An integrative and interdisciplinary approach is mandatory, including physical and nutritional aspects in order to improve outcomes [18, 47]. As many as 10% of 65 years and 25–50% of 85 years patients admitted with ACS are frail. Frailty strongly associates worse events in the short and long-term in NSTEMI elderly patients [48, 49, 50]. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs have proven to provide significant benefits after an ischemic event, though a low proportion of elderly patients are referred [51].

Fig. 2.

Geriatric syndromes common in the elderly. Geriatric syndromes are multifactorial conditions that are prevalent in older adults. Due to its importance, frailty, malnutrition, cognitive impairment and delirium are highlighted.

Likewise, malnutrition, present in up to one third of ACS elderly patients, associates worse prognosis [52]. Thus, strategies to prevent and improve nutrition status are of great importance.

Cognitive impairment also represents a marker of poor prognosis after an ACS [53]. Delirium, an acute disorder of attention and cognition, is also frequent after admission to cardiac intensive care units [54], associating poorer outcomes [55]. Accordingly, it is highly encouraged to implement measures to prevent delirium.

5. Secondary prevention

Age is associated with high rates of recurrent cardiovascular events [56]. Secondary prevention should be highly encouraged in this population. Some of the recommendations in secondary prevention are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4.Secondary prevention. Adapted from current ESC Guidelines.
Smoking No exposure to tobacco in any form.
Diet Healthy diet low in saturated fat with a focus on wholegrain products, vegetables, fruit, and fish.
Physical activity 3.5–7 h moderately vigorous physical activity per week or 30–60 min most days.
Blood pressure BP <140/90 mmHg. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (or angiotensin receptor blockers in cases of intolerance to ACE inhibitors) are recommended, especially in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, diabetes or chronic kidney disease.
Diabetes HbA1c: <7% (<53 mmol/mol). Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor antagonist should be considered regarding their cardiovascular benefits in this scenario.
Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) Statins are recommended in all NSTEMI patients. Goal: 50% LDL-C reduction from baseline and LDL-C <1.4 mmol/L (<55 mg/dL).
Cardiac rehabilitation Enrolment in cardiac rehabilitation programmes is recommended.

Lipid-lowering therapies are essential after an ACS, and high-dose statins are highly encouraged in current guidelines. Different studies and meta-analysis have demonstrated that elderly patients do also benefit from this therapy, though registries show a low proportion of patients 80 years receiving this treatment after an ACS [57, 58]. In the IMPROVE-IT trial patients over 75 years who received intensive statin therapy after an ACS experienced a substantial reduction in a composite of cardiovascular events with no differences in terms of safety or tolerability [59]. In a meta-analysis including nine clinical trials including 19.569 patients between 62–82 years, statin therapy reduced all-cause mortality by 22% over five years and also other cardiovascular events [60]. Recently, Schubert et al. [61] demonstrated in a real-world setting trial that lower lipid levels were associated with significant reductions in a combined primary outcome including cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarct and stroke and also with significant reduction in HF admission rates or need for revascularization. As a matter of a fact, secondary prevention measures should be adapted to baseline specific conditions such as frailty or polypharmacy and risk of drug interaction [57]. Recommendations regarding angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and beta-blockers, do not differ from those in younger patients.

Enrolment in cardiac rehabilitation programmes provides better drug adherence and functional capacity in the elderly immediately after an ACS [51, 62]. Such great benefits also include better cardiovascular risk factors control, Mediterranean diet adherence and functional capacity improvement [47, 63].

6. Conclusions

Management of elderly patients with NSTEMI constitutes both a priority and a challenge for cardiologists nowadays. Assessment of ischemic and haemorrhagic risks is principal, as well as comorbidities and geriatric syndromes. Overall, robust elderly patients with ACS should be managed as their younger counterparts. Specific focused therapies, aimed to prevent functional decline, malnutrition or other geriatric conditions, should be implemented during hospitalization in all cases. In this complex clinical setting, a multidisciplinary approach is required to provide best treatment and prognosis.

Abbreviations

AF, atrial fibrillation; ACS, acute coronary syndrome; CIN, contrast-induced nephropathy; CR, cardiac rehabilitation; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; DES, drug eluting stents; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulants; ESC, European Society of Cardiology; LMWH, low molecular weight heparin; MI, myocardial infarction; NSTEMI, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.

Author contributions

CJM and PDV wrote this manuscript, prepared the figures and adapted Tables 2,4. PDV and FA wrote the manuscript and revised the final version.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Acknowledgment

Thanks to all the peer reviewers for their opinions and suggestions.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
[1]
Dai X, Busby-Whitehead J, Alexander KP. Acute coronary syndrome in the older adults. Journal of Geriatric Cardiology. 2016; 13: 101–108.
[2]
Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, Barthélémy O, Bauersachs J, Deepak B, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. European Heart Journal. 2021; 42: 1289–1367.
[3]
Canto JG, Fincher C, Kiefe CI, Allison JJ, Li Q, Funkhouser E, et al. Atypical presentations among Medicare beneficiaries with unstable angina pectoris. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2002; 90: 248–253.
[4]
Eggers KM, Jernberg T, Lindahl B. Cardiac Troponin Elevation in Patients without a Specific Diagnosis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2019; 73: 1–9.
[5]
Vogel B, Farhan S, Hahne S, Kozanli I, Kalla K, Freynhofer MK, et al. Sex-related differences in baseline characteristics, management and outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation. European Heart Journal. Acute Cardiovascular Care. 2016; 5: 347–353.
[6]
Pernias V, García Acuña JM, Raposeiras-Roubín S, Barrabés JA, Cordero A, Martínez-Sellés M, et al. Influencia de las comorbilidades en la decisión del tratamiento invasivo en ancianos con SCASEST. REC: Interventional Cardiology. 2021; 3: 15–20.
[7]
Díez-Villanueva P, Vicent L, Alfonso F. Gender disparities in treatment response in octogenarians with acute coronary syndrome. Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2020; 12: 1277–1279.
[8]
Vicent L, Ariza-Solé A, Alegre O, Sanchís J, López-Palop R, Formiga F, et al. Octogenarian women with acute coronary syndrome present frailty and readmissions more frequently than men. European Heart Journal. Acute Cardiovascular Care. 2019; 8: 252–263.
[9]
Gómez-Talavera S, Núñez-Gil I, Vivas D, Ruiz-Mateos B, Viana-Tejedor A, Martín-García A, et al. Acute coronary syndrome in nonagenarians: clinical evolution and validation of the main risk scores. Revista Espanola De Geriatria Y Gerontologia. 2014; 49: 5–9.
[10]
D’Ascenzo F, Biondi-Zoccai G, Moretti C, Bollati M, Omedè P, Sciuto F, et al. TIMI, GRACE and alternative risk scores in Acute Coronary Syndromes: a meta-analysis of 40 derivation studies on 216,552 patients and of 42 validation studies on 31,625 patients. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2012; 33: 507–514.
[11]
Ariza-Solé A, Formiga F, Lorente V, Sánchez-Salado JC, Sánchez-Elvira G, Roura G, et al. Eficacia de los scores de riesgo hemorrágico en el paciente anciano con síndrome coronario agudo. Revista EspañOla De Cardiología. 2014; 67: 463–470.
[12]
Urban P, Mehran R, Colleran R, Angiolillo DJ, Byrne RA, Capodanno D, et al. Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Circulation. 2019; 140: 240–261.
[13]
Díez-Villanueva P, Vera A, Ariza-Solé A, Formiga F, Martínez-Sellés M, Alegre O, et al. LONGEVO-SCA registry investigators. Baseline CHA2 DS2 -VASc score and prognosis in octogenarians with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. International Journal of Clinical Practice. 2021; 76: e14082.
[14]
Díez-Villanueva P, Ariza-Sole A, Vidan MT, Bonanad C, Formiga F, Sanchís J, et al. Recommendations of the Geriatric Cardiology Section of the Spanish Society of Cardiology for the assessment of frailty in the elderly patients with heart disease. Revista Española de Cardiología. 2019; 72: 63–71.
[15]
Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2001; 56: M146–M157.
[16]
Alegre O, Formiga F, López-Palop R, Marín F, Vidán MT, Martínez-Sellés M, et al. An Easy Assessment of Frailty at Baseline Independently Predicts Prognosis in very Elderly Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2018; 19: 296–303.
[17]
Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, Collet J, Costa F, Jeppsson A, et al. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: the Task Force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). European Heart Journal. 2018; 39: 213–260.
[18]
Díez-Villanueva P, Jiménez-Méndez C, Alfonso F. Non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome in the elderly. Journal of Geriatric Cardiology. 2020; 17: 9–15.
[19]
Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning A, Benedetto U, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group, 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. European Heart Journal. 2019; 40: 87–165.
[20]
Schupke S, Neumann FJ, Menichelli M, Mayer K, Bernlochner I, Wöhrle J, et al. ISAR-REACT 5 Trial Investigators. Ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2019; 381: 1524–1534.
[21]
Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, Montalescot G, Ruzyllo W, Gottlieb S, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2007; 357: 2001–2015.
[22]
Savonitto S, Ferri LA, Piatti L, Grosseto D, Piovaccari G, Morici N, et al. Comparison of Reduced-Dose Prasugrel and Standard-Dose Clopidogrel in Elderly Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Early Percutaneous Revascularization. Circulation. 2018; 137: 2435–2445.
[23]
Esteve-Pastor MA, Ruíz-Nodar JM, Orenes-Piñero E, Rivera-Caravaca JM, Quintana-Giner M, Véliz-Martínez A, et al. Temporal Trends in the Use of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2018; 23: 57–65.
[24]
Ariza-Solé A, Formiga F, Bardají A, Viana-Tejedor A, Alegre O, de Frutos F. Clinical Characteristics and Prognosis of very Elderly Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated with Ticagrelor: Insights from the LONGEVO-SCA Registry. Revista Espanola De Cardiologia. 2019; 72: 263–266.
[25]
Costa F, van Klaveren D, James S, Heg D, Räber L, Feres F, et al. Derivation and validation of the predicting bleeding complications in patients undergoing stent implantation and subsequent dual antiplatelet therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score: a pooled analysis of individual-patient datasets from clinical trials. Lancet. 2017; 389: 1025–1034.
[26]
Danchin N, Lettino M, Zeymer U, Widimsky P, Bardaji A, Barrabes JA, et al. Use, patient selection and outcomes of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor treatment in patients with STEMI based on contemporary European registries. European Heart Journal. Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy. 2016; 2: 152–167.
[27]
Gimbel ME and the rest of POPULAR-AGE team. Randomized comparison of clopidogrel versus ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients of 70 years or older with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: POPULAR AGE trial. ESC Congress. Paris. 2019.
[28]
Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomström-Lundqvist C, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). European Heart Journal. 2021; 42: 373–498.
[29]
Bonanad C, Díez-Villanueva P, Blas SG, Ayesta A, Ibars S, Ariza-Solé A, et al. Impact of antithrombotic treatment and geriatric syndromes in octogenarias with atrial fibrilllation and ischemic heart disease. Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol. 2020; 55: 338–342
[30]
Esteve‐Pastor MA, Martín E, Alegre O, Formiga F, Sanchís J, López‐Palop R, et al. Impact of frailty and atrial fibrillation in elderly patients with acute coronary syndromes. European Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2021; 51: 13505.
[31]
Devlin G, Gore JM, Elliott J, Wijesinghe N, EagleK A, Avezum A, et al. Management and month outcomes in elderly and very elderly patients with high-risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events. European Heart Journal. 2008; 29: 1275–1282.
[32]
Savonitto S, Cavallini C, Petronio AS, Murena E, Antonicelli R, Sacco A, et al. Early aggressive versus initially conservative treatment in elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2012; 5: 906–916.
[33]
Sanchis J, García Acuña JM, Raposeiras S, Barrabés JA, Cordero A, Martínez-Sellés M, et al. Comorbidity burden and revascularization benefit in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome. Revista EspañOla De Cardiología. 2020. (in press)
[34]
Tegn N, Abdelnoor M, Aaberge L, Endresen K, Smith P, Aakhus S, et al. Invasive versus conservative strategy in patients aged 80 years or older with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris (after Eighty study): an open-label randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2016; 387: 1057–1065.
[35]
Sanchis J, Núñez E, Barrabés JA, Marín F, Consuegra-Sánchez L, Ventura S, et al. Randomized comparison between the invasive and conservative strategies in comorbid elderly patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. European Journal of Internal Medicine. 2016; 35: 89–94.
[36]
Savonitto S, De Servi S, Petronio AS, Bolognese L, Cavallini C, Greco C, et al. Early aggressive vs. initially conservative treatment in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the Italian Elderly ACS study. Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine. 2008; 9: 217–226.
[37]
Llaó I, Ariza-Solé A, Sanchis J, Alegre O, López-Palop R, Formiga F, et al. Invasive strategy and frailty in very elderly patients with acute coronary syndromes. EuroIntervention. 2018; 14: e336–e342.
[38]
Sanchis J, Ariza-Solé A, Abu-Assi E, Alegre O, Alfonso F, Barrabés JA, et al. Invasive Versus Conservative Strategy in Frail Patients with NSTEMI: the MOSCA-FRAIL Clinical Trial Study Design. Revista EspañOla De Cardiología. 2019; 72: 154–159.
[39]
Naber CK, Urban P, Ong PJ, Valdes-Chavarri M, Abizaid AA, Pocock SJ, et al. Biolimus-a9 polymer-free coated stent in high bleeding risk patients with acute coronary syndrome: a Leaders Free ACS sub-study. European Heart Journal. 2017; 38: 961–969.
[40]
Varenne O, Cook S, Sideris G, Kedev S, Cuisset T, Carrié D, et al. Drug-eluting stents in elderly patients with coronary artery disease (SENIOR): a randomised single-blind trial. Lancet. 2018; 391: 41–50.
[41]
Agewall S, Cattaneo M, Collet JP, Andreotti F, Lip GYH, Verheugt FWA, et al. Expert position paper on the use of proton pump inhibitors in patients with cardiovascular disease and antithrombotic therapy. European Heart Journal. 2013; 34: 1708–1713b.
[42]
Fukui T, Tabata M, Morita S, Takanashi S. Early and long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with acute coronary syndrome versus stable angina pectoris. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2013; 145: 1577–1583.e1.
[43]
Wiedemann D, Bernhard D, Laufer G, Kocher A. The Elderly Patient and Cardiac Surgery—a Mini-Review. Gerontology. 2010; 56: 241–249.
[44]
Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning AP, Benedetto U, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. European Heart Journal. 2019; 40: 87–165.
[45]
Lee R, Matsutani N, Polimenakos AC, Levers LC, Lee M, Johnson RG. Preoperative Noncontrast Chest Computed Tomography Identifies Potential Aortic Emboli. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2007; 84: 38–42.
[46]
Magnuson A, Sattar S, Nightingale G, Saracino R, Skonecki E, Trevino KM. A Practical Guide to Geriatric Syndromes in Older Adults with Cancer: a Focus on Falls, Cognition, Polypharmacy, and Depression. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting. 2019; 39: e96–e109.
[47]
Sanchis J, Sastre C, Ruescas A, Ruiz V, Valero E, Bonanad C, et al. Randomized Comparison of Exercise Intervention Versus Usual Care in Older Adult Patients with Frailty after Acute Myocardial Infarction. The American Journal of Medicine. 2021; 134: 383–390.e2.
[48]
Dou Q, Wang W, Wang H, Ma Y, Hai S, Lin X, et al. Prognostic value of frailty in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatrics. 2019; 19: 222.
[49]
Sanchis J, Ruiz V, Sastre C, Bonanad C, Ruescas A, Fernández-Cisnal A, et al. Frailty Tools for Assessment of Long-term Prognosis after Acute Coronary Syndrome. Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes. 2020; 4: 642–648.
[50]
Rodríguez-Queraltó O, Formiga F, López-Palop R, Marín F, Vidán MT, Martínez-Sellés M, et al. FRAIL Scale also Predicts Long-Term Outcomes in Older Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2020; 21: 683–687.e1.
[51]
Brouwers RWM, Houben VJG, Kraal JJ, Spee RF, Kemps HMC. Predictors of cardiac rehabilitation referral, enrolment and completion after acute myocardial infarction: an exploratory study. Netherlands Heart Journal. 2021; 29: 151–157.
[52]
Tonet E, Campo G, Maietti E, Formiga F, Martinez-Sellés M, Pavasini R, et al. Nutritional status and all-cause mortality in older adults with acute coronary syndrome. Clinical Nutrition. 2019; 39: 1572–1579.
[53]
Sanchis J, Bonanad C, García-Blas S, Ruiz V, Fernández-Cisnal A, Sastre C, et al. Long-Term Prognostic Value of Cognitive Impairment on Top of Frailty in Older Adults after Acute Coronary Syndrome. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10: 444.
[54]
Noriega FJ, Vidan MT, Sanchez E, Diaz A, Serra-Rexach JA, Fernandez-Aviles F, et al. Incidence and impact of delirium on clinical outcomes in older patients hospitalized for acute cardiac diseases. American Heart Journal. 2015; 170: 938–944.
[55]
Vives-Borrás M, Martínez-Sellés M, Ariza-Solé A, Vidán MT, Formiga F, Bueno H, et al. Clinical and prognostic implications of delirium in elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Journal of Geriatric Cardiology. 2019; 16: 121–128.
[56]
Li S, Peng Y, Wang X, Qian Y, Xiang P, Wade SW, et al. Cardiovascular events and death after myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke in an older Medicare population. Clinical Cardiology. 2019; 42: 391–399.
[57]
Ruscica M, Macchi C, Pavanello C, Corsini A, Sahebkar A, Sirtori CR. Appropriateness of statin prescription in the elderly. European Journal of Internal Medicine. 2018; 50: 33–40.
[58]
Rich MW. Secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases. 2014; 57: 168–175.
[59]
Bach RG, Cannon CP, Giugliano RP, White JA, Lokhnygina Y, Bohula EA, et al. Effect of Simvastatin-Ezetimibe Compared with Simvastatin Monotherapy after Acute Coronary Syndrome among Patients 75 Years or Older. JAMA Cardiology. 2019; 4: 846.
[60]
Afilalo J, Duque G, Steele R, Jukema JW, de Craen AJM, Eisenberg MJ. Statins for secondary prevention in elderly patients: a hierarchical bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2008; 51: 37–45.
[61]
Schubert J, Lindahl B, Melhus H, Renlund H, Leosdottir M, Yari A, et al. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction and statin intensity in myocardial infarction patients and major adverse outcomes: a Swedish nationwide cohort study. European Heart Journal. 2021; 42: 243–252.
[62]
Marcin T, Eser P, Prescott E, Prins L, Kolkman E, Bruins W, van der Velde A, et al. Training intensity and improvements in exercise capacity in elderly patients undergoing European cardiac rehabilitation—the EU-CaRE multicenter cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15: e0242503.
[63]
Marcos-Forniol E, Meco JF, Corbella E, Formiga F, Pintó X. Secondary prevention programme of ischaemic heart disease in the elderly: a randomised clinical trial. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2018; 25: 278–286.
Share
Back to top