Mischie Alexandru Nicolae, Andrei Catalina Liliana, Sinescu Crina, Bajraktari Gani, Ivan Eugen, Chatziathanasiou Georgios Nikolaos, Schiariti Michele
Invasive Cardiology Unit, Centre Hospitalier de Montluçon, Montluçon, France.
Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
J Geriatr Cardiol. 2017 Jul;14(7):442-456. doi: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2017.07.006.
Age is an important prognostic factor in the outcome of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). A substantial percentage of patients who experience ACS is more than 75 years old, and they represent the fastest-growing segment of the population treated in this setting. These patients present different patterns of responses to pharmacotherapy, namely, a higher ischemic and bleeding risk than do patients under 75 years of age. Our aim was to identify whether the currently available ACS ischemic and bleeding risk scores, which has been validated for the general population, may also apply to the elderly population. The second aim was to determine whether the elderly benefit more from a specific pharmacological regimen, keeping in mind the numerous molecules of antiplatelet and antithrombotic drugs, all validated in the general population. We concluded that the GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) risk score has been extensively validated in the elderly. However, the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines) bleeding score has a moderate correlation with outcomes in the elderly. Until now, there have not been head-to-head scores that quantify the ischemic versus hemorrhagic risk or scores that use the same end point and timeline (e.g., ischemic death rate versus bleeding death rate at one month). We also recommend that the frailty score be considered or integrated into the current existing scores to better quantify the overall patient risk. With regard to medical treatment, based on the subgroup analysis, we identified the drugs that have the least adverse effects in the elderly while maintaining optimal efficacy.
年龄是急性冠脉综合征(ACS)预后的一个重要因素。经历ACS的患者中有很大比例超过75岁,他们是接受该治疗的人群中增长最快的部分。这些患者对药物治疗呈现出不同的反应模式,即与75岁以下的患者相比,缺血和出血风险更高。我们的目的是确定目前已在普通人群中得到验证的ACS缺血和出血风险评分是否也适用于老年人群。第二个目的是确定老年人是否能从特定的药物治疗方案中更多获益,同时要考虑到众多已在普通人群中得到验证的抗血小板和抗血栓药物。我们得出的结论是,GRACE(全球急性冠脉事件注册研究)风险评分已在老年人中得到广泛验证。然而,CRUSADE(不稳定型心绞痛患者能否通过早期实施ACC/AHA指南快速进行风险分层以抑制不良结局)出血评分与老年人的结局有中等程度的相关性。到目前为止,还没有能量化缺血与出血风险的直接对比评分,也没有使用相同终点和时间线的评分(例如,1个月时的缺血死亡率与出血死亡率)。我们还建议考虑将衰弱评分纳入当前现有的评分中,以更好地量化患者的总体风险。关于药物治疗,基于亚组分析,我们确定了在老年人中不良反应最小同时能保持最佳疗效的药物。