- Research article
- Open Access
- Open Peer Review
This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
Age – related treatment strategy and long-term outcome in acute myocardial infarction patients in the PCI era
© Kala et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Received: 17 November 2011
Accepted: 25 April 2012
Published: 25 April 2012
Older age, as a factor we cannot affect, is consistently one of the main negative prognostic values in patients with acute myocardial infarction. One of the most powerful factors that improves outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes is the revascularization preferably performed by percutaneous coronary intervention. No data is currently available for the role of age in large groups of consecutive patients with PCI as the nearly sole method of revascularization in AMI patients. The aim of this study was to analyze age-related differences in treatment strategies, results of PCI procedures and both in-hospital and long-term outcomes of consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Retrospective multicenter analysis of 3814 consecutive acute myocardial infarction patients divided into two groups according to age (1800 patients ≤ 65 years and 2014 patients > 65 years). Significantly more older patients had a history of diabetes mellitus and previous myocardial infarctions.
The older population had a significantly lower rate of coronary angiographies (1726; 95.9% vs. 1860; 92.4%, p < 0.0001), PCI (1541; 85.6% vs. 1505; 74.7%, p < 0.001), achievement of optimal final TIMI flow 3 (1434; 79.7% vs. 1343; 66.7%, p < 0.001) and higher rate of unsuccessful reperfusion with final TIMI flow 0-1 (46; 2.6% vs. 78; 3.9%, p = 0.022). A total of 217 patients (5.7%) died during hospitalization, significantly more often in the older population (46; 2.6% vs. 171; 8.5%, p < 0.001). The long-term mortality (data for 2847 patients from 2 centers) was higher in the older population as well (5 years survival: 86.1% vs. 59.8%). Though not significantly different and in contrast with PCI, the presence of diabetes mellitus, previous MI, final TIMI flow and LAD, as the infarct-related artery, had relatively lower impact on the older patients. Severe heart failure on admission (Killip III-IV) was associated with the worst prognosis in the whole group of patients, though its significance was higher in the youngers (HR 6.04 vs. 3.14, p = 0.051 for Killip III and 12.24 vs. 5.65, p = 0.030 for Killip IV). We clearly demonstrated age as a strong discriminator for the whole population of AMI patients.
In a consecutive AMI population, the older group (>65 years) was associated with a less pronounced impact of risk factors on long-term outcome. To ascertain the coronary anatomy by coronary angiography and proceed to PCI if suitable regardless of age is crucial in all patients, though the primary success rate of PCI in the older age is lower. Age, when viewed as a risk factor, was a dominant discriminating factor in all patients.
Over the past decades the incidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) together with mortality have decreased dramatically in developed countries [1, 2]. These favorable trends reflect an improvement in many factors that influence outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) . Older age, as a factor we cannot affect, is consistently one of the main negative prognostic values in most trials [4, 5]. One of the most powerful factors that improves outcomes in patients with ACS is the revascularization preferably performed by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) [6, 7]. No data is currently available for the role of age in large groups of consecutive patients with PCI as the nearly sole method of revascularization in AMI patients. The aim of this study was to assess age related differences in treatment strategies (conservative or invasive), results of PCI procedures and both in-hospital and long-term outcomes in AMI patients.
Patients’ group and data collection
This multicenter, retrospective project included 3814 consecutive “all-comer” patients with a diagnosis of AMI. Age under 18 was the only exclusion criterion. Patients were enrolled in 3 tertiary complex cardiovascular university centers providing the 24/7 catheterization service (3 year period, 2005 to 2007 in two centers, and a two year period 2007 to 2008 in one center). All patients with a final diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction with/without ST elevations (STEMI / NonSTEMI) were included in the registry. The diagnosis of AMI was based on the ESC/ACC/AHA definition  and had to be confirmed at the time of discharge from the hospital, or post-mortem, if a patient died during hospitalization.
Age-related baseline differences
Number of patients
History of DM
History of previous MI
Killip class on admission
STEMI + new LBBB
No indication for CAG
Number of diseased vessels
Single vessel disease
Two vessel disease
Three vessel disease
Left main artery disease
IRA (by CAG or autopsy)
Initial TIMI flow
PCI total number
PCI% of CAG
The World Heart Organization (WHO) definition for age reflecting also the most common retirement age in Europe was used for creating two groups of patients. The first group (younger population) included subjects ≤ 65 years of age, the second group (older population) included subjects > 65 years of age. Endpoints for this analysis were as follows: coronary angiography and PCI performed during index hospitalization, final TIMI flow after PCI, a change in TIMI flow during the PCI procedure and in-hospital mortality. Long-term mortality data independently followed by the Czech Ministry of Health were available from 2 centers. All data in the registry were anonymised and the study was provided in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration. According to the national law no ethics committee approval or signed patient informed consent were needed.
Categorical parameters were described by absolute and relative frequency of categories. Continuous parameters were described using the median and the 5th – 95th percentile range. Statistical significance of differences between groups of patients was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the Fisher exact test for categorical variables. Risk factors associated with long-term survival were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazard model and described using hazard ratios and their 95% confidence interval. Survival data were visualized using the Kaplan-Meier methodology. Influence of patient age on HR values within the age categories was analyzed using the interaction term in the Cox proportional hazard model. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Age-related endpoints of the project
Number of patients
Final TIMI flow
Change of the initial TIMI flow 0-1 to the final TIMI flow 3
Risk factors influencing long term survival of patients in two selected centers
≤65 years (N = 1368)
>65 years (N = 1368)
HR (95% CI)
HR (95% CI)
Age (10 years)
1.76 (1.35; 2.28)
2.03 (1.75; 2.35)
1.18 (0.78; 1.79)
0.90 (0.76; 1.08)
1.91 (1.38; 2.65)
1.41 (1.18; 1.68)
2.02 (1.42; 2.87)
1.46 (1.20; 1.76)
2.52 (1.67; 3.81)
1.80 (1.47; 2.22)
6.04 (3.48; 10.48)
3.14 (2.36; 4.18)
12.24 (7.94; 18.89)
5.65 (4.14; 7.70)
0.60 (0.42; 0.88)
0.46 (0.38; 0.55)
1.66 (1.14; 2.41)
2.19 (1.83; 2.63)
STEMI + new onset of LBBB
1.02 (0.72; 1.43)
1.21 (1.00; 1.47)
0.98 (0.70; 1.38)
0.83 (0.68; 1.01)
Final TIMI flow 2-3
0.20 (0.10; 0.41)
0.32 (0.22; 0.47)
Final TIMI flow 0-1
5.00 (2.43; 10.18)
3.13 (2.11; 4.65)
Single vessel disease
Two vessel disease
1.30 (0.86; 1.96)
1.53 (1.13; 2.06)
Three vessel disease
2.10 (1.43; 3.09)
2.24 (1.70; 2.95)
Left main artery disease
4.12 (1.28; 13.28)
5.85 (2.50; 13.67)
4.52 (1.77; 11.57)
5.26 (3.26; 8.48)
LAD incl. its branches
1.77 (1.17; 2.66)
1.10 (0.86; 1.41)
LCX incl. its branches
1.36 (0.83; 2.24)
1.09 (0.80; 1.48)
RCA incl. its branches
0.05 (0.00; 545.31)
0.80 (0.30; 2.17)
IRA not known
2.69 (1.63; 4.43)
2.37 (1.83; 3.05)
All patients were treated at academic tertiary hospitals, which provided 24/7 catheterizations. All reperfusion procedures, if indicated, were performed nearly solely by PCI; none of the patients, in either group, received thrombolysis. These conditions are unique in such a large group of consecutive, unselected patients having a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction.
There is very limited data dealing with all types of AMI. However, in comparison with previously published data, the mortality in our cohort seems to be very low, especially in the older group. One of the reasons might be the exceptionally high catheterization (94.0%) and revascularization rate using PCI (79.9% of all study subjects). Despite the additional, known, risk factors and a worse expected prognosis in the older patients , the rate of diagnostic coronary angiography and PCI was found to be significantly lower in this high-risk population (92.4% vs. 95.9%, p < 0.001 and 74.7% vs. 85.6%, p < 0.001 respectively). One of the potential explanations for the lower PCI rate as well as the worse primary angiographic results in older patients might be the more complex and unfavorable anatomy. Unique data were collected from long-term survival analysis showing similar risk factors influencing the prognosis in both groups of patients with some exceptions. We clearly demonstrated age as a strong discriminating factor across the entire population of AMI patients. Though, for the most part not statistically significant, it seems to be clear that initial signs of heart failure (Killip II-IV), presence of diabetes mellitus and previous MI, final TIMI flow and the IRA are significant negative predictors but do not play as important a role in the older group as they do in younger patients. On the contrary, PCI in the older patients seems to be even more important than in younger patients (Table 3).
A comparison with any previously published data is rather difficult because of significantly lower catheterization and revascularization rate in previously published consecutive patient groups and a lack of analyzed cohorts of unselected consecutive patients with AMI. Mehta et al.  evaluated in-hospital mortality in STEMI patients (age ≥ 70 y) treated with thrombolysis and described higher mortality rates compared to our findings (14.4% in PCI-treated patients vs. 17.6% in patients treated with thrombolysis). Ishihara et al.  recently described the outcome of a large cohort of patients with AMI divided according to the age (< 70 years or ≥ 70 years). Despite the use of a favorable methodology, i.e. involving only patients undergoing catheterization within 24 hours from admission, the in-hospital mortality rate was substantially higher in both age groups comparing to our cohort (11.7% in the patients ≥ 70 years and 5.0% in patients < 70 years). Since age is a factor that cannot be changed, we have to focus on improvement of other modalities that can be influenced, such as shortening of the times between symptom onset and primary PCI . Our findings strongly support the use of PCI in all patients (HR 0.60, p = 0.008 in younger patients and HR 0.46; p < 0.001 in older patients), which was also demonstrated by Nicolau et al.  in the ≥ 70 years population in adjusted models (HR 0.64, p = 0.001 older patients vs. HR 0.74, p = 0.073 younger patients).
The study authors recognize the following limitations of the project. The registry is retrospective; however the cohort included unselected, consecutive patients with a diagnosis of AMI from multiple centers. The angiographic data were not assessed by an independent lab or in a blinded manner, although, angiographic findings were attained by experienced operators licensed in interventional cardiology. Only a limited number of coronary artery disease risk factors were followed and because of the comparison of two cohorts only univariate analysis was used to assess predictors of long-term survival.
In a consecutive AMI population, the older group (> 65 years) was associated with a less pronounced impact of risk factors on long-term outcome. To ascertain the coronary anatomy by coronary angiography and proceed to PCI if suitable regardless of age is crucial in all patients, though the primary success rate of PCI in the older age is lower. Age, when viewed as a risk factor, was a dominant discriminating factor in all patients.
The publication was partially supported by grant VVZ MSMT 0021622402.
- Yeh RW, Sidney S, Chandra M, Sorel M, Selby JV, Go AS: Population trends in the incidence and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2010, 362: 2155-2165. 10.1056/NEJMoa0908610.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Danchin N, Puymirat E, Aissaoui N, Adavane S, Durand E: Epidemiology of acute coronary syndromes in France and in Europe. Ann Cardiol Angeiol (Paris). 2010, 59 (Suppl 2): S37-S41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ounpuu S, Dans T, Avezum A, Lanas F, McQueen M, Budaj A, Pais P, Varigos J, Lisheng L: Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet. 2004, 364: 937-952. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17018-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Granger CB, Goldberg RJ, Dabbous O, Pieper KS, Eagle KA, Cannon CP, Van De Werf F, Avezum A, Goodman SG, Flather MD, Fox KAA: Predictors of hospital mortality in the global registry of acute coronary events. Arch Intern Med. 2003, 163: 2345-2353. 10.1001/archinte.163.19.2345.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gharacholou SM, Lopes RD, Alexander KP, Mehta RH, Stebbins AL, Pieper KS, James SK, Armstrong PW, Granger CB: Age and Outcomes in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Findings From the APEX-AMI Trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011, 171: 559-567. 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bauer T, Koeth O, Jünger C, Heer T, Wienbergen H, Gitt A, Zahn R, Senges J, Zeymer U: Effect of an invasive strategy on in-hospital outcome in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2007, 28: 2873-10.1093/eurheartj/ehm464.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Newell MC, Henry JT, Henry TD, Duval S, Browning JA, Christiansen EC, Larson DM, Berger AK: Impact of age on treatment and outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2011, 161: 664-672. 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.12.018.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Alpert JS, Thygesen K, Antman E, Bassand JP: Myocardial infarction redefined–a consensus document of The Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000, 36: 959-969. 10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00804-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- De Bruyne MC, Mosterd A, Hoes AW, Kors JA, Kruijssen DACM, Van Bemmel JH, Hofman A, Grobbee DE: Prevalence, determinants, and misclassification of myocardial infarction in the elderly. Epidemiology. 1997, 8: 495-500. 10.1097/00001648-199709000-00004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schiele F, Meneveau N, Seronde MF, Descotes-Genon V, Oettinger J, Ecarnot F, Bassand J-P: Changes in management of elderly patients with myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2009, 30: 987-994.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shelton RJ, Crean AM, Somers K, Priestley C, Hague C, Blaxill JM, Wheatcroft SB, McLenachan JM, Greenwood JP, Blackman DJ: Real-world outcome from ST elevation myocardial infarction in the very elderly before and after the introduction of a 24/7 primary percutaneous coronary intervention service. Am Heart J. 2010, 159: 956-963. 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.02.026.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mehta RH, Rathore SS, Radford MJ, Wang Y, Wang Y, Krumholz HM: Acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: differences by age. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001, 38: 736-741. 10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01432-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mehta RH, Sadiq I, Goldberg RJ, Gore JM, Avezum A, Spencer F, Kline-Rogers E, Allegrone J, Pieper K, Fox KAA, Eagle KA: Effectiveness of primary percutaneous coronary intervention compared with that of thrombolytic therapy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2004, 147: 253-259. 10.1016/j.ahj.2003.08.007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ishihara M, Inoue I, Kawagoe T, Shimatani Y, Miura F, Nakama Y, Dai K, Ootani T, Ooi K, Ikenaga H, Miki T, Nakamura M, Kishimoto S, Sumimoto Y: Comparison of gender-specific mortality in patients < 70 years versus ≥ 70 years old with acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2011, 108: 772-775. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.04.030.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hafiz AM, Jan MF, Mori N, Gupta A, Bajwa T, Allaqaband S: Contemporary clinical outcomes of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly versus younger patients presenting with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. J Interv Cardiol. 2011, 24: 357-365. 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2011.00634.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nicolau JC, Lemos PA, Wajngarten M, Giraldez RR, Serrano CV, Martinez EE, Baracioli LM, Kalil R, Jatene FB, Dallan LA, Puig LB, Stolf NA: The role of invasive therapies in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction. Clinics. 2009, 64: 553-560. 10.1590/S1807-59322009000600010.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2261/12/31/prepub
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.