A retrospective study of an invasive versus conservative strategy in patients aged ≥80 years with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Objective To investigate what is the most appropriate strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) aged ≥80 years in China. Methods This cohort study retrospectively enrolled patients with STEMI aged ≥80 years old and grouped them according to the treatment strategy that was used: a conservative treatment strategy or an invasive treatment strategy. Factors associated with whether to perform an invasive intervention, in-hospital death and a good prognosis were investigated using logistic regression analyses. Results A total of 232 patients were enrolled: conservative treatment group ( n = 93) and invasive treatment group ( n = 139). Patients in the invasive treatment group had a better prognosis and lower incidence of adverse events compared with the conservative treatment group. Advanced age, creatinine level and a higher Killip class were inversely correlated with whether to perform an invasive intervention, while the use of beta-receptor-blocking agents was a favourable factor for invasive treatment. Hypertension and a higher Killip class were risk factors for in-hospital death, while the use of beta-receptor-blocking agents and diuretics decreased the risk of in-hospital death. Conclusions An invasive treatment strategy was superior to a conservative treatment strategy in patients with STEMI aged ≥80 years.