Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advances in managing non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) have yet to clarify the optimal treatment for elderly patients, whose complex health profiles and underrepresentation in trials add challenges to decision-making. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials comparing invasive versus conservative strategies in elderly patients (≥ 70 years) with NSTE-ACS through October 2024. Co-primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities, with secondary outcomes including myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, stroke, decompensated heart failure, and bleeding events. Outcomes were analyzed using both risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR). RESULTS: Analysis of 11 trials (4,114 patients) showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.98-1.11; HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.94-1.29) or cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.85-1.12; HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.73-1.20) between strategies. The invasive approach significantly reduced subsequent revascularization (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.27-0.62; HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.19- 0.47; p < 0.01 in both analyses) and MI risk (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57-0.99, p = 0.04; HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49-0.83, p < 0.01), though with some levels of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses for MI. Stroke and heart failure outcomes were comparable between strategies. However, it significantly increased the risk of both composite major and minor bleeding risk (RR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.02-2.20, p = 0.04) and major bleeding alone (RR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.04-3.56, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with NSTE-ACS, an invasive strategy reduces revascularization needs and, potentially, MI risk without impacting survival, but at the cost of increased bleeding risk. This supports individualized treatment decisions based on patient-specific characteristics, particularly bleeding risk and geriatric factors.