Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie Park, NSW, 2113, Australia.
Eur Geriatr Med. 2022 Oct;13(5):1057-1069. doi: 10.1007/s41999-022-00667-9. Epub 2022 Jul 31.
To assess current evidence comparing the impact of available coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with different subtypes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on health outcomes.
Scopus, Embase and PubMed were systematically searched in May 2022 for studies comparing outcomes between coronary interventions in frail older patients with ACS. Studies were excluded if they provided no objective assessment of frailty during the index admission, under-represented patients aged 75 years or older, or included patients with non-ACS coronary disease without presenting results for the ACS subgroup. Following data extraction from the included studies, a qualitative synthesis of results was undertaken.
Nine studies met all eligibility criteria. All eligible studies were observational. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across study designs regarding ACS subtypes included, frailty assessments used, coronary interventions compared, and outcomes studied. All studies were assessed to be at high risk of bias. Notably, adjustment for confounders was limited or not adequately reported in all studies. The comparative assessment suggested a possible efficacy signal for invasive treatment relative to conservative treatment but possibly at the risk of increased bleeding events.
There is a paucity of evidence comparing health outcomes between different coronary interventions in frail patients aged 75 years or older with ACS. Available evidence is at high risk of bias. Given the growing importance of ACS in frail patients aged 75 years or older, new studies are needed to inform optimal ACS care for this population. Future studies should rigorously adjust for confounders.
评估现有证据,比较 75 岁或以上衰弱患者不同类型急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)的可用冠状动脉介入治疗对健康结局的影响。
2022 年 5 月,系统检索了 Scopus、Embase 和 PubMed 数据库,以寻找比较 ACS 衰弱老年患者冠状动脉介入治疗结局的研究。如果研究在指数入院期间没有对衰弱进行客观评估、代表性不足的 75 岁或以上患者、或包括非 ACS 冠状动脉疾病但未报告 ACS 亚组结果,则排除研究。在对纳入研究进行数据提取后,对结果进行定性综合。
9 项研究均符合所有纳入标准。所有纳入的研究均为观察性研究。在纳入的研究中,关于包括的 ACS 亚型、使用的衰弱评估、比较的冠状动脉介入治疗以及研究的结局,研究设计存在很大的异质性。所有研究均被评估为存在高偏倚风险。值得注意的是,所有研究均存在调整混杂因素的局限性或未充分报告。比较评估表明,与保守治疗相比,侵入性治疗可能具有疗效信号,但可能存在出血事件增加的风险。
目前缺乏比较 75 岁或以上衰弱合并 ACS 患者不同冠状动脉介入治疗方法健康结局的证据。现有证据存在高偏倚风险。鉴于 ACS 在 75 岁或以上衰弱患者中的重要性日益增加,需要开展新的研究为这一人群提供最佳 ACS 治疗方案。未来的研究应严格调整混杂因素。