No abstract

Occlusion or flow deterioration of SB spanned by the ST is relatively common during repeat intervention for in-ST restenosis. Several factors (mainly anatomic features) are useful predictors of this event. However, most SB occlusions are clinically silent and frequently reappear at follow-up.

ImportanceTo our knowledge, no randomized clinical trial has compared the invasive and conservative strategies in frail, older patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of invasive and conservative strategies in frail, older patients with NSTEMI at 1 year.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted at 13 Spanish hospitals between July 7, 2017, and January 9, 2021, and included 167 older adult (≥70 years) patients with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥4) and NSTEMI. Data analysis was performed from April 2022 to June 2022.InterventionsPatients were randomized to routine invasive (coronary angiography and revascularization if feasible; n = 84) or conservative (medical treatment with coronary angiography for recurrent ischemia; n = 83) strategy.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary end point was the number of days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH) from discharge to 1 year. The coprimary end point was the composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or postdischarge revascularization.ResultsThe study was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic when 95% of the calculated sample size had been enrolled. Among the 167 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 86 (5) years, and mean (SD) Clinical Frailty Scale score was 5 (1). While not statistically different, DAOH were about 1 month (28 days; 95% CI, −7 to 62) greater for patients managed conservatively (312 days; 95% CI, 289 to 335) vs patients managed invasively (284 days; 95% CI, 255 to 311; P = .12). A sensitivity analysis stratified by sex did not show differences. In addition, we found no differences in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.74-2.85; P = .28). There was a 28-day shorter survival in the invasive vs conservatively managed group (95% CI, −63 to 7 days; restricted mean survival time analysis). Noncardiac reasons accounted for 56% of the readmissions. There were no differences in the number of readmissions or days spent in the hospital after discharge between groups. Neither were there differences in the coprimary end point of ischemic cardiac events (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.54-1.57; P = .78).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of NSTEMI in frail older patients, there was no benefit to a routine invasive strategy in DAOH during the first year. Based on these findings, a policy of medical management and watchful observation is recommended for older patients with frailty and NSTEMI.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03208153

Background Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients are increasingly older. Conventional prognostic scales include chronological age but do not consider vulnerability. In elderly patients, a frail phenotype represents a better reflection of biological age. Hypothesis: This study aims to determine the prevalence of frailty and its influence on patients age ≥75 years with ACS. Methods Patients age ≥75 years admitted due to type 1 myocardial infarction were included in 2 tertiary hospitals, and clinical data were collected prospectively. Frailty was defined at admission using the previously validated Survey of Health Ageing and Retirement in Europe Frailty Index (SHARE‐FI) tool. The primary endpoint was the combination of death or nonfatal myocardial reinfarction during a follow‐up of 6 months. Major bleeding (hemoglobin decrease ≥3 g/dL or transfusion needed) and readmission rates were also explored. Results A total of 234 consecutive patients were included. Frail patients (40.2%) had a higher‐risk profile, based on higher age and comorbidities. On multivariate analysis, frailty was an independent predictor of the combination of death or nonfatal myocardial reinfarction (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12‐5.79), an independent predictor of the combination of death, nonfatal myocardial reinfarction, or major bleeding (aHR: 2.14, 95% CI: 1.13‐4.04), and an independent predictor of readmission (aHR: 1.80, 95% CI: 1.00‐3.22). Conclusions Frailty phenotype at admission is common among elderly patients with ACS and is an independent predictor for severe adverse events. It should be considered in future risk‐stratification models.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed how we view our consultations. To reduce the risk of spread in the most vulnerable patients (those with heart disease) and health personnel, most face-to-face consultations have been replaced by telemedicine consultations. Although this change has been rapidly introduced, it will most likely become a permanent feature of clinical practice. Nevertheless, there remain serious doubts about organizational and legal issues, as well as the possibilities for improvement etc. In this consensus document of the Spanish Society of Cardiology, we attempt to provide some keys to improve the quality of care in this new way of working, reviewing the most frequent heart diseases attended in the cardiology outpatient clinic and proposing some minimal conditions for this health care process. These heart diseases are ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and arrhythmias. In these 3 scenarios, we attempt to clarify the basic issues that must be checked during the telephone interview, describe the patients who should attend in person, and identify the criteria to refer patients for follow-up in primary care. This document also describes some improvements that can be introduced in telemedicine consultations to improve patient care.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Myocardial infarction (MI) patients are increasingly older, and common risk scores include chronological age, but do not consider chronic comorbidity or biological age. Frailty status reflects these variables and may be independently correlated with prognosis in this setting. Objective: This study investigated the impact of frailty on the prognosis of elderly patients admitted due to MI. Methods: This prospective and observational study included patients ≥75 years admitted to three tertiary hospitals in Spain due to MI. Frailty assessment was performed at admission using the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe Frailty Index (SHARE-FI) tool. The primary endpoint was the composite of death or non-fatal reinfarction during a follow-up of 1 year. Overall mortality, reinfarction, the composite of death, reinfarction and stroke, major bleeding, and readmission rates were also explored. Results: A total of 285 patients were enrolled. Frail patients (109, 38.2%) were older, with a higher score in the Charlson Comorbidity Index and with a higher risk score addressed in the GRACE and CRUSADE indexes. On multivariate analysis including GRACE, CRUSADE, maximum creatinine level, culprit lesion revascularization, complete revascularization, and dual antiplatelet therapy at discharge, frailty was an independent predictor of the composite of death and reinfarction (2.81, 95% CI 1.16–6.78) and overall mortality (3.07, 95% CI 1.35–6.98). Conclusion: Frailty is an independent prognostic marker of the composite of mortality and reinfarction and of overall mortality in patients aged ≥75 years admitted due to MI.