Tan, Ru‐San

Abstract Frailty is highly prevalent in cardiovascular disease and associates with poor clinical outcomes. Several cardiovascular conditions benefit from invasive interventions, but the impact of these procedures in frail patients remains unclear. We thus performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize evidence and quantify the pooled effect of clinical outcomes of invasive cardiovascular interventions among frail vs. non-frail patients. Systematic search of two electronic databases from January 2015 to April 2025 was performed including all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies examining outcomes of invasive cardiovascular interventions stratified by frailty. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, and other adverse outcomes. Risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were assessed using random-effects models. Thirty-one studies (10 RCTs, 21 prospective, 3 retrospective studies) with a total of 27 534 participants were included. Compared with non-frail patients, frail patients after cardiovascular procedures were at higher risks of all-cause mortality (RR 3.14, 95% CI: 2.29-4.30), and hospitalizations (RR 1.88, 95% CI: 1.29-2.73). Frail patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve implantation and percutaneous mitral-valve interventions did not have significant increased mortality risks compared with non-frail patients (P > 0.05). Pre-frailty predicted lower mortality risks amongst patients undergoing transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (HR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.92). Frail patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction derived similar mortality benefits from an invasive vs. conservative approach (HR 1.13, 95% CI: 0.64-2.01). In conclusion, frailty prognosticates adverse outcomes following invasive cardiovascular interventions and influences treatment efficacy, highlighting its significance in treatment selection

Abstract Aims Hypothesis 1 of the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial enrolled 1212 patients with an LVEF of ≤35% and CAD amenable to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Patients were randomized to CABG and optimal medical therapy (MED) or MED alone. The objective was to assess whether or not patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) enrolled in the STICH trial would have greater benefit from CABG than patients without DM. Methods and results The characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with and without DM randomized to CABG and MED or MED alone were compared. DM was present in 40%. At baseline, patients with DM had more triple vessel CAD, higher LVEF, and smaller left ventricular volumes. In patients with DM, the primary outcome of all-cause mortality occurred in 39% of patients in the MED group and 39% in the CABG group [hazard ratio (HR) with CABG 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73–1.26]. In patients without DM, the primary outcome occurred in 41% of patients in the MED group and 32% in the CABG group (HR with CABG 0.80, 95% CI 0.63–1.02). While numerically it would appear that the treatment effect of CABG is blunted in patients with DM, there was no significant interaction between DM and treatment group on formal statistical testing. Conclusions Patients with DM enrolled in the STICH trial had more triple vessel disease, smaller hearts, and higher LVEF than those without DM. CABG did not exert greater benefit in patients with DM.