ABSTRACT
Objective: Unstable angina (UA) is one of the leading problems in healthcare management in developing countries where facilities of catheterization laboratory are scarce and well-trained operators who are able to manage acute coronary syndrome often unavailable. In this scenario, strategy to arrive at optimal management to stabilize the condition medically is always a controversy. There is still controversy concerning the optimal management strategy during medical stabilization at places with inadequate catheterization laboratory facilities and a lack of well-trained operators who are able to manage acute coronary syndrome. Furthermore, the choices of medical and invasive management, including the use of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) are still debatable. Curious by the challenge, we launch this prospective randomized controlled study to compare the efficacy of nadroparin with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) in elderly patients with UA or non ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Methods: Ninety-three elderly patients with UA, whose clinical manifestations were classified according to Braunwald’s classification, were recruited. All patients underwent coronary angiography within 96 hours after hospitalization; those who had angiographic coronary arterial stenosis that was feasible for PTCA were randomized to receive either nadroparin 7,500 IU subcutaneously twice daily for 5 days or PTCA. All clinical events in hospital and post-discharge up to 12 months, including death, composite end point [myocardial infarction (MI), recurrent angina/or ischemia], re-intervention (either PTCA or coronary artery bypass surgery) and rehospitalization, were recorded. Results: Only Forty-six patients were randomized equally into NAD group (n =23) and PTCA group (n =23). There were no statistically significant differences between NAD vs. PTCA regarding their baseline clinical characteristics, ECG, number of diseased vessels involved and outcomes (death and MI). The composite end point occurred more frequently in the NAD group [(34.5% vs. 4.3%); p = 0.01]. After a 12-month follow-up there was no difference in death rate or MI between the two groups but there was a clinically significant difference with regard to post-discharge outcomes in the NAD group, i.e, higher recurrent angina in NAD vs. PTCA (43.5% vs. 23.7%; p = 0.012), requiring additional PTCA (39.1% vs. 21.7%; p = 0.012), rehospitalization (47.8% vs. 30.4%; p = 0.015) and composite endpoint (47.8% vs. 30.4%; p = 0.015). Conclusions: PTCA achieve less composite endpoint than conservative management while nadroparin was easy to administer, but one-third of the patients still experienced recurrent angina or ischemia. PTCA is another option and could be performed safely, resulting in a less recurrent angina and shorter hospital stay. It is suggested that in the elderly with UA, nadroparin may be considered is the initial optimal management where PTCA facility is not available; those with recurrent angina symptoms should be referred afterwards for PTCA.