ReviewGeriatrics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Beyond Chronological Age: Frailty, Vulnerability, and Invasive Decision-Making in Older Adults with Acute Coronary Syndromes.
Review in Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Older adults represent a growing proportion of patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), yet they remain a highly heterogeneous population in terms of biological reserve, comorbidity burden, functional status, cognitive performance, and recovery potential. Chronological age alone is an insufficient basis for invasive decision-making, as it may lead to both therapeutic nihilism and disproportionate treatment escalation. Frailty has emerged as a clinically meaningful construct that captures vulnerability to acute stressors and may refine prognostic assessment beyond traditional cardiovascular risk scores. In ACS, frailty is associated with mortality, bleeding, procedural complications, delirium, functional decline, readmission, and loss of independence. However, frailty should not be interpreted as an automatic contraindication to invasive management. Rather, it should inform proportional care by integrating ischemic risk, procedural burden, reversibility potential, patient preferences, and expected quality of recovery. This narrative review examines the role of frailty assessment in older adults with ACS, focusing on its implications for invasive decision-making. We discuss frailty tools, clinical outcomes, therapeutic bias, healthcare inequities, and patient-centered endpoints. Finally, we propose a vulnerability-based framework for cardiovascular care, in which frailty guides individualized therapeutic intensity rather than justifying age-based exclusion from evidence-based treatment.
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.