Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, USA; University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, USA; University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023 May 2;81(17):1697-1709. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.02.048.
Whether initial invasive management in older vs younger adults with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia improves health status or clinical outcomes is unknown.
The goal of this study was to examine the impact of age on health status and clinical outcomes with invasive vs conservative management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial.
One-year angina-specific health status was assessed with the 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (score range 0-100; higher scores indicate better health status). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the treatment effect of invasive vs conservative management as a function of age on the composite clinical outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for resuscitated cardiac arrest, unstable angina, or heart failure.
Among 4,617 participants, 2,239 (48.5%) were aged <65 years, 1,713 (37.1%) were aged 65 to 74 years, and 665 (14.4%) were aged ≥75 years. Baseline SAQ summary scores were lower in participants aged <65 years. Fully adjusted differences in 1-year SAQ summary scores (invasive minus conservative) were 4.90 (95% CI: 3.56-6.24) at age 55 years, 3.48 (95% CI: 2.40-4.57) at age 65 years, and 2.13 (95% CI: 0.75-3.51) at age 75 years (P = 0.008). Improvement in SAQ Angina Frequency was less dependent on age (P = 0.08). There were no age differences between invasive vs conservative management on the composite clinical outcome (P = 0.29).
Older patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia had consistent improvement in angina frequency but less improvement in angina-related health status with invasive management compared with younger patients. Invasive management was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in older or younger patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).
对于患有慢性冠状动脉疾病且存在中度或重度缺血的老年患者与年轻患者,初始侵入性治疗能否改善健康状况或临床结局尚不清楚。
本研究旨在探讨 ISCHEMIA(比较医学和侵入性治疗对健康效果的国际研究)试验中年龄对侵入性与保守性治疗的健康状况和临床结局的影响。
采用西雅图心绞痛问卷(SAQ)的 7 项条目评估 1 年时的心绞痛特异性健康状况(评分范围 0-100;评分越高表示健康状况越好)。Cox 比例风险模型估计了侵入性与保守性治疗的疗效,其作用取决于年龄对心血管死亡、心肌梗死、复苏性心脏骤停后住院、不稳定型心绞痛或心力衰竭的复合临床结局的影响。
在 4617 名参与者中,2239 名(48.5%)年龄<65 岁,1713 名(37.1%)年龄为 65-74 岁,665 名(14.4%)年龄≥75 岁。年龄<65 岁的参与者的基线 SAQ 综合评分较低。在 55 岁、65 岁和 75 岁时,1 年 SAQ 综合评分(侵入性治疗减去保守性治疗)的完全调整后差异分别为 4.90(95%CI:3.56-6.24)、3.48(95%CI:2.40-4.57)和 2.13(95%CI:0.75-3.51)(P=0.008)。SAQ 心绞痛发作频率的改善对年龄的依赖性较小(P=0.08)。在复合临床结局方面,侵入性治疗与保守性治疗在年龄方面无差异(P=0.29)。
与年轻患者相比,患有慢性冠状动脉疾病且存在中度或重度缺血的老年患者在心绞痛发作频率方面有一致的改善,但在与心绞痛相关的健康状况方面的改善较少。在老年或年轻患者中,侵入性治疗与改善临床结局无关。(比较医学和侵入性治疗对健康效果的国际研究[ISCHEMIA];NCT01471522)。