Trial reportOpen heart2020
Patients aged 80 years or older with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris randomised to an invasive versus conservative strategy: angiographic and procedural results from the After Eighty study.
Trial report in Open heart, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01255540 (A Randomised Prospective Study of an Invasive Strategy Versus Medical Therapy in Patients Over 80 Years With Non ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Randomised Prospective Study of an Invasive Strategy Versus Medical Therapy in Patients Over 80 Years With Non ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) or Unstable Angina Pectoris (UAP)
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Invasive Versus Conservative Management of NSTEMI Patients Aged ≥ 75 Years.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2023Pooled it
- Older women with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive or conservative management: an individual patient data meta-analysis.European heart journal open · 2024Article
- Health Status and Clinical Outcomes in Older Adults With Chronic Coronary Disease: The ISCHEMIA Trial.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to report the angiographic and procedural results of the After Eighty study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01255540), and to identify independent predictors of revascularisation.
methodsPatients of ≥80 years old with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and unstable angina pectoris were randomised to an invasive or conservative strategy. Angiographic and procedural results were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore variables predicting revascularisation.
resultsAmong 229 patients in the invasive group, 220 underwent immediate coronary angiography (90% performed via the radial artery). Of these patients, 48% had three-vessel disease or left main stenosis, 18% two-vessel disease, 16% one-vessel disease, 17% minor coronary vessel wall changes and two patients had normal coronary arteries. Six patients (3%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in 107 patients (49%), with 57% treated with bare metal stents, 37% drug-eluting stents and 6% balloon angioplasty. On average, 1.7 lesions were treated and 2 stents delivered per patient. Complications included 1 major PCI-related bleeding (successfully treated), 2 minor access site-related bleedings, 3 side branch occlusions during PCI and 11 periprocedural myocardial infarctions (considered end points). Sex, bundle branch block and smoking were independent predictors of revascularisation.
conclusionsPCI was performed in approximately half of the patients, similar to findings in younger populations. Procedural success was high, with few complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01255540.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.