Trial reportAge and ageing2026
Invasive versus conservative strategy for older patients with myocardial infarction based on cognitive function: the SENIOR-RITA cognition analysis.
Trial report in Age and ageing, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOlder adults with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and cognitive impairment experience higher cardiovascular risk than patients with normal cognition. It remains unclear how cognition should influence whether older adults receive an invasive or conservative treatment strategy.
objectivesTo compare an invasive and conservative treatment strategy among older adults with NSTEMI and cognitive impairment.
methodsThis study is a pre-specified analysis of the SENIOR-RITA randomised controlled trial. Cognition was measured at randomisation using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Patients were followed up for a median of 4.1 years postrandomisation. The primary outcome was a composite of time to cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI).
resultsMoCA was available for 1455 patients (95.8%) who underwent randomisation. Within the cognitively impaired group (909 patients), the primary outcome occurred in 116 patients (26.8%) in the invasive group and in 141 patients (29.6%) in the conservative group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.10; P = 0.20). Nonfatal MI occurred in 48 patients (11.1%) in the invasive group and in 75 patients (15.8%) in the conservative group (HR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.92). However, there was no interaction between treatment strategy and cognition.
conclusionsAmong those with evidence of cognitive impairment at randomisation, an invasive treatment strategy did not reduce the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI, and there was no evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity based on cognition. The reduction in nonfatal MI events among those with cognitive impairment should be interpreted as an exploratory finding.
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.