RCT: Invasive Strategy Does Not Significantly Improve Cardiovascular Outcomes Over Conservative Management in Older Adults with NSTEMI

Study Design and Population: This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial conducted across 48 sites in the UK, enrolling 1,518 patients aged 75 years or older with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Patients were randomly assigned to receive either the best available medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) or in combination with invasive treatment (coronary angiography and revascularization). The population included individuals who were frail or had high comorbidities, with a mean age of 82 years.

Main Findings: Over a median follow-up of 4.1 years, the primary outcome (a composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction) occurred in 25.6% of the invasive-strategy group and 26.3% of the conservative-strategy group (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77–1.14; P=0.53), showing no significant difference. Cardiovascular death rates were similar between the two groups, but nonfatal myocardial infarction was lower in the invasive group (11.7% vs. 15.0%; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57–0.99). Procedural complications were rare, affecting less than 1% of patients.

Implications for Practice: This trial suggests that in older adults with NSTEMI, an invasive strategy does not significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction compared to a conservative approach. The findings support the consideration of conservative management in frail elderly patients or those with significant comorbidities, given the minimal additional benefit of invasive treatment.

Reference: Kunadian, V., Mossop, H., Shields, C., Bardgett, M., Watts, P., Teare, M. D., Pritchard, J., et al. (2024). Invasive treatment strategy for older patients with myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2407791

Link: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2407791