Underuse of coronary intervention and its impact on mortality in the elderly with myocardial infarction. A propensity-matched analysis from the Hungarian Myocardial Infarction Registry

BackgroundData are limited on the real-life use of coronary intervention (PCI) and on its long-term efficacy and safety in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).MethodsData from a nation-wide registry of patients treated due to an AMI event in centers of invasive cardiology were analyzed for the potential interaction of age on the utilization of invasive therapy and outcome. Follow-up data of consecutive patients between March 1, 2013, and March 1, 2014 were analyzed. Differences in the risk of all-cause death at 1 year between patients undergoing PCI versus others receiving conservative treatment were determined from vital records and were compared with propensity score matching.ResultsA total of 8485 consecutive patients were enrolled at 19 centers. Sixty-three percent of the patients were male; the mean age was 65.1 ± 12.4 years. The proportion of STEMI cases was 51%. STEMI cases were treated with primary PCI in 91.0% while patients with NSTEACS underwent PCI in 71.0%. The age of patients was a significant determinant of deferring coronary angiography (Hazard ratio (HR): 0.524 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.59, p < 0.001) and PCI (HR: 0.76 95% CI 0.73-0.80, p < 0.001). One-year survival after PCI was significantly better both in the overall and in the propensity matched cohort (HR: 0.44 [95% CI: 0.39-0.49] and HR: 0.59 [95% CI: 0.50-0.69], p < 0.001, both). This benefit remained consistent in age-dependent subgroup analyses.ConclusionCoronary intervention is underused among the elderly despite the mortality benefit of interventional therapy in myocardial infarction that is consistent in all age groups.