Invasive management
Invasive management has been studied in 6 papers since 2024: 1 trial and 1 observational study in people, 4 reviews; 2 in the past year. The newest paper, Oct 27, 2026: “Inflammaging and Acute Coronary Syndrome in Elderly Patients: Pathophysiological Mechanisms, Therapeutic Implications and Future Perspectives”.
6 papers study it7 findingsUpdated
2 new papers in 30 daysSee all 6 papers on invasive management
At a glance
Independent labs found the same change in people. 4 independent labs in 3 countries.
“higher baseline frailty burden associated with greater improvement in SAQ scores at 1 year with initial invasive (vs. conservative) treatment (P interactionfrailty × intervention arm < 0.001).”
None of its findings points the other way.
- 4 independent labs in 3 countries
- Funders: American Heart Association and 3 more
- Human trial1
- Humans1
Studies in people
1 study gave invasive management to people and measured what changed.
| What changed | Design | People | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
up: Improves Seattle Angina QuestionnaireP interaction < 0.001 | Randomized trial1 year | 5,322 peopleBothmean 64 yearsMidlife adults; Older adults; chronic coronary disease, higher baseline frailty burden | Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, May 14, 2025 |
What did studies of invasive management find?
3Studies of invasive management measured 3 outcomes; the most studied are ischemia-driven revascularization (1 study), mortality (1) and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (1).
Ischemia-driven revascularization
downin humans1RR 0.29
1 study
Ischemia-driven revascularization
downin humans1RR 0.29
Invasive management decreases ischemia-driven revascularization in humans (non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction) (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.21-0.40).
“ischemia-driven revascularization (RR, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.21-0.40])”
Reviewnon-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarctionweighted mean 47.1 monthsn = 2,997
Journal of the American Heart Association
Mortality
no changein humans1RR 1.05
1 study
Mortality
no changein humans1RR 1.05
Invasive management showed no clear effect on mortality in humans (non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94-1.18).
“There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between an invasive versus a conservative management approach (27.9% versus 26.6%; risk ratio [RR], 1.05 [95% CI, 0.94-1.18]; I2=0%).”
Reviewnon-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarctionweighted mean 47.1 monthsn = 2,997
Journal of the American Heart Association
Seattle Angina Questionnaire
upin humans1
1 study
Seattle Angina Questionnaire
upin humans1
Invasive management improves Seattle Angina Questionnaire in humans (chronic coronary disease, higher baseline frailty burden) (P interaction < 0.001).
“higher baseline frailty burden associated with greater improvement in SAQ scores at 1 year with initial invasive (vs. conservative) treatment (P interactionfrailty × intervention arm < 0.001).”
Human trialchronic coronary disease, higher baseline frailty burden1 yearn = 5,322
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
What is invasive management linked with?
3Studies link invasive management with 3 measures, most often in-hospital mortality (2 studies), long-term mortality (1) and myocardial infarction (1).
In-hospital mortality
downin humans2RR 0.57
2 studies
In-hospital mortality
downin humans2RR 0.57
Invasive management is linked with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality in humans (hospitalized for MI).
“invasive management were related to a lower risk of in-hospital death”
Humanshospitalized for MI
Kardiologia polska
Invasive management is associated with in-hospital mortality in humans (acute coronary syndrome; compared with conservative management) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43–0.75).
“An invasive strategy was associated with a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality compared with conservative management”
Reviewacute coronary syndrome; compared with conservative managementn = 1,902
ESC Congress 2026 abstract
Long-term mortality
downin humans1RR 0.62
1 study
Long-term mortality
downin humans1RR 0.62
Invasive management is associated with long-term mortality in humans (acute coronary syndrome; compared with conservative management) (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49–0.77).
“Invasive management was associated with significantly lower long-term mortality”
Reviewacute coronary syndrome; compared with conservative management
ESC Congress 2026 abstract
Myocardial infarction
downin humans1RR 0.76
1 study
Myocardial infarction
downin humans1RR 0.76
Invasive management lowers the risk of myocardial infarction in humans (non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.97).
“An invasive approach was associated with a lower risk of recurrent myocardial infarction (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.60-0.97])”
Reviewnon-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarctionweighted mean 47.1 monthsn = 2,997
Journal of the American Heart Association