Invasive Versus Conservative Treatment Strategy in Older Patients With Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background
Non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) are a common cause of hospital admission in older patients. Our study aims to synthesize the available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare clinical outcomes with invasive versus conservative medical management in this population.

Methods
A literature search of online databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted from inception to September 1, 2024. The search aimed to identify RCTs that reported clinical outcomes with invasive versus conservative strategies in older patients (≥ 70 years) with NSTE-ACS. The risk ratios (RRs) were used as summary estimates.

Results
Seven RCTs with 2998 patients were included; 1490 patients in the invasive group and 1508 patients in the conservatively managed group. The pooled analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the two strategies for the risk of all-cause death (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.92–1.15), cardiovascular death (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.82–1.33), stroke (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.53–1.15), and major bleeding (RR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.90–1.69). However, the invasive strategy was associated with a significantly reduced risk of myocardial infarction (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57–0.96) and unplanned revascularization (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.21–0.40) compared to the conservative strategy.

Conclusion
In older patients with NSTE-ACS, an invasive strategy reduces the risk of repeat myocardial infarction and unplanned revascularization without a significant increase in stroke or major bleeding. There was no associated reduction in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality with the invasive strategy compared to conservative management.