Abstract
Invasive treatment with coronary angiography is preferred approach for patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) compared to medical therapy alone. The results from the randomized clinical trials (RCT) that compared the invasive treatment strategy vs. conservative approach in the elderly (≥75 years) with NSTE-ACS has been inconsistent. To compare invasive and conservative strategies in the elderly (>75 years) with NSTE-ACS. We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL Register and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through July 10, 2021) for RCTs comparing invasive and conservative strategies in the elderly with NSTE-ACS. We used random-effects model to calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval(CI). A total of 6 RCT including 2,323 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The median follow-up duration was 13.5 months. When invasive approach was compared to conservative strategy, it showed no difference in all-cause mortality in patients aged ≥75 years with NSTE-ACS (RR of 0.85; 95% CI 0.70–1.04; P = 0.12; I2 = 0%). There was significant reduction in MI (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.49 0.71; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and unplanned revascularization (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.53, P <0.001, I2 = 0%). Invasive strategy was associated with higher risk of major bleeding when compared to conservative treatment (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.21-3.74, P = 0.009, I2 = 0%). Comparison of both strategies showed no significant difference in stroke (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.38-1.46, P = 0.40; I2 = 0%). This updated meta-analysis suggests that in elderly patients (>75 years) with NSTE-ACS, a routine invasive strategy is associated with a reduction in MI and revascularization, while increasing the risk of major bleeding, but without difference in all-cause mortality and stroke.