ArticleCurrent cardiology reviews2021
Should Percutaneous Coronary Intervention be the Standard Treatment Strategy for Significant Coronary Artery Disease in all Octogenarians?
Article in Current cardiology reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rotablation for Octogenarians in a Modern Cathlab: Short- and Intermediate-Term Results.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2023Article
- Percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians: 10-year experience from a primary percutaneous coronary intervention centre with off-site cardiothoracic support.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains the leading cause of cardiovascular death in octogenarians. This group of patients represents nearly a fifth of all patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in real-world practice. Octogenarians have multiple risk factors for CAD and often greater myocardial ischemia than younger counterparts, with a potential of an increased benefit from myocardial revascularization. Despite this, octogenarians are routinely under- -treated and belittled in clinical trials. Age does make a difference to PCI outcomes in older people, but it is never the sole arbiter of any clinical decision, whether in relation to the heart or any other aspect of health. The decision when to perform revascularization in elderly patients and especially in octogenarians is complex and should consider the patient on an individual basis, with clarification of the goals of the therapy and the relative risks and benefits of performing the procedure. In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI), there is no upper age limit regarding urgent reperfusion and primary PCI must be the standard of care. In non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, a strict conservative strategy must be avoided; whereas the use of a routine invasive strategy may reduce the occurrence of MI and the need for revascularization at follow-up, with no established benefit in terms of mortality. In stable CAD patients, invasive therapy on top of optimal medical therapy seems better in symptom relief and quality of life. This review summarizes the available data on percutaneous revascularization in the elderly patients and particularly in octogenarians, including practical considerations on PCI risk secondary to ageing physiology. We also analyse technical difficulties met when considering PCI in this cohort and the ongoing need for further studies to ameliorate risk stratification and eventually outcomes in these challenging patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.