“Moreover, we should not just consider its potential benefits in terms of whether it will reduce mortality or risk of recurrent infarcts,” Dr. Psaltis added. “In certain individuals >90, an invasive approach may be taken to improve quality of life and symptom burden, help to keep patients in independent living at home, or reduce readmission rates to hospital or even
the use of anti-anginal medications that can be associated with debilitating side-effects.”
Dr. Paul Erne from the University of Zurich in Switzerland, who heads the steering committee of the Acute Myocardial Infarction in Sweden (AMIS), stressed, “Conservative treatment
does not result in a poor outcome in every patient and we need to know much more about differential approach.”
“However, active treatment remains a great option for part of the elderly patients,” regardless of age, he told Reuters Health by email. “Please note the increasing number of patients
treated at age above 100 years which proves to be a good option if the patients want to live actively.”
Dr. Rahul Potluri, founder of the ACALM (Algorithm for Comorbidities, Associations, Length of Stay and Mortality) Study Unit, Birmingham, U.K., recently reviewed the role of
angioplasty in octogenarian ACS patients.
He told Reuters Health by email, “This study is the most conclusive evidence to date, showing the benefits of an invasive approach in patients above the age of 80 with the most common types of ACS (namely NSTEMI and unstable angina). The findings are most surprising given that both the groups were very similar in terms of patient characteristics and medications taken, thus delineating the true benefit of the invasive strategy in the most controlled fashion and in a short follow-up period.”
The study did not have commercial funding and the researchers declared no competing interests.