Effects of percutaneous coronary intervention at different therapy time on patients at 70 years or elder with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in intermediate-risk

Xiaofan YU,Hua YU,Hongwu CHEN,Kefu FENG,Hao HU,Junling ZHOU,Xiangyong KONG,Dongbiao YU,Jiawei WU,Longwei LI,Likun MA
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13201/j.issn.1001-1439.2017.04.005
2017-01-01
Journal of Clinical Cardiology
Abstract:Objective:To explore the optimal time of intervention in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) in intermediate-risk.Method:This was a retrospective clinical study.We analyzed data of 599 NSTE-ACS patients (aged≥70 years) who were underwent PCI in our hospital between January,2010 and June,2013.Patients were stratified into three groups according to their timing of invasive strategy.The 195 patients received intervention treatment within 24 hours of hospital admissiom 234 patients received intervention treatment ranged from 24 to 72 hours of hospital admission;170 patients received intervention treatment after 72 hours of hospital admission.The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE),a composite of cardiac death、myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 3 years.Result:MACE rates at 3 years were 11.4%,9.5% and 23.7%(P=0.001)in PCI within 24 hours,24-72 hours,after 72 hours group respectively.Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients who received intervention therapy within 24 hours (OR:0.645,95%CI:0.437-0.963,P=0.021) and from 24 to 72 hours (OR:0.372,95%CI:0.217-0.637,P=0.001) had lower 3-year MACE rates than the patients who received intervention therapy after 72 hours.But the 3-year MACE rates were similar between patients who received intervention therapy within 24 hours and at 24-72 hours (OR:0.712,95%CI:0.386-1.313,P=0.276).Conclusion:Invasive strategy (<72 h) can improve clinical prognosis in elderly patients with NSTE-ACS in intermediate-risk.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?