Comparison of late results of percutaneous coronary intervention among stable patients ≤65 versus >65 years of age with an occluded infarct related artery (from the Occluded Artery Trial)

Although opening an occluded infarct-related artery >24 hours after myocardial infarction in stable patients in the Occluded Artery Trial (OAT) did not reduce events over 7 years, there was a suggestion that the effect of treatment might differ by patient age. Baseline characteristics and outcomes by treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus optimal medical therapy alone were compared by prespecified stratification at age 65 years. A p value 65 years (n = 641) were more likely to be female, to be nonsmokers, and to have hypertension, lower estimated glomerular filtration rates, and multivessel disease compared to younger patients (aged ≤65 years, n = 1,560) (p <0.001). There was no significant observed interaction between treatment assignment and age for the primary outcome after adjustment (p = 0.10), and there was no difference between PCI and optimal medical therapy observed in either age group. At 7-year follow-up, younger patients tended to have angina more often compared to the older group (hazard ratio 1.21, 99% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.46, p = 0.01). The 7-year composite primary outcome was more common in older patients (p <0.001), and age remained significant after covariate adjustment (hazard ratio 1.42, 99% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.84). The rate of early PCI complications was low in the 2 age groups. The trend toward a differential effect of PCI in the young versus the old for the primary outcome was likely driven by measured and unmeasured confounders and by chance. PCI reduces angina to a similar degree in the young and old. In conclusion, there is no indication for routine PCI to open a persistently occluded infarct-related artery in stable patients after myocardial infarction, regardless of age. © 2012 Elsevier Inc