Initial conservative strategy more appropriate for patients with acute NSTEMI and high levels of frailty: JAMA

Written By :  Medha Baranwal
Medically Reviewed By :  Dr. Kamal Kant Kohli
Published On 2024-03-07 02:30 GMT   |   Update On 2024-03-07 06:28 GMT

Spain: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of 167 patients with frailty and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) showed an early harm followed by later benefit with an initial invasive strategy, resulting in a neutral effect on survival at 4 years."A routine invasive strategy did not reduce the number of days alive at a median follow-up of 1113 days...

Login or Register to read the full article

Spain: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of 167 patients with frailty and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) showed an early harm followed by later benefit with an initial invasive strategy, resulting in a neutral effect on survival at 4 years.

"A routine invasive strategy did not reduce the number of days alive at a median follow-up of 1113 days versus a conservative strategy," the researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. Invasive treatment was linked with shorter survival within the first year but more prolonged survival after the first year.

The MOSCA-FRAIL RCT compared invasive and conservative treatment strategies in patients with frailty with NSTEMI. It revealed no differences in the number of days alive and out of the hospital at one year. Juan Sanchis, CIBERCV, Valencia, Spain, and colleagues sought to assess the outcomes of the MOSCA-FRAIL trial during extended follow-up.

The MOSCA-FRAIL trial was conducted at 13 hospitals in Spain between 2017 and 2021, and included 167 adults (aged ≥70 years) with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥4) and NSTEMI. Follow-up in the preplanned secondary analysis extended to January 31, 2023.

Patients were randomized to a routine invasive (coronary angiography and revascularization if feasible [n = 84]) or a conservative (medical treatment with coronary angiography only if recurrent ischemia [n = 83]) strategy. Among the 167 included patients in the analysis, the mean age was 86 years; 52.7% were women.

The study's primary endpoint was the difference in restricted mean survival time (RMST). Secondary endpoints were readmissions for any cause, considering recurrent readmissions.

The researchers reported the following findings:

  • A total of 93 deaths and 367 readmissions accrued.
  • The RMST for all-cause death over the entire follow-up was 3.13 years in the invasive and 3.06 years in the conservative treatment groups.
  • The RMST analysis showed inconclusive differences in survival time (invasive minus conservative difference, 28 days).
  • Patients under invasive treatment tended to have shorter survival in the first year (−28 days), which improved after the first year (192 days).
  • Kaplan-Meier mortality curves intersected, displaying higher mortality to 1 year in the invasive group that shifted to a late benefit (landmark analysis hazard ratio, 0.58).
  • Early harm was more evident in the subgroup with a Clinical Frailty Scale score greater than 4.
  • There were no differences for the secondary endpoints.

In conclusion, an invasive treatment strategy failed to improve outcomes at a median follow-up of 1113 days. However, the researchers observed a differential distribution of deaths, with early harm followed by later benefit. The phenomenon of depletion of susceptible patients may be responsible for this behavior.

"Therefore, an initial conservative strategy may be more suitable for patients with NSTEMI and high levels of frailty," the researchers wrote. "These findings provide valuable insights for clinical decision-making in this vulnerable patient population."

Reference:

Sanchis J, Bueno H, García-Blas S, et al. Invasive Treatment Strategy in Adults With Frailty and Non–ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(3):e240809. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.0809


Tags:    
Article Source : JAMA Network Open

Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement/treatment or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2024 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News