Canadian-American differences in the management of acute coronary syndromes in the GUSTO IIb trial: one-year follow-up of patients without ST-segment elevation. Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) II Investigators.

University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Circulation (Impact Factor: 14.95). 10/2000; 102(12):1375-81.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Little information exists concerning practice patterns between Canada and the United States in the management of myocardial infarction (MI) patients without ST-segment elevation and unstable angina.
We examined the practice patterns and 1-year outcomes of 2250 US and 922 Canadian patients without ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes in the Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) IIb trial. The US hospitals more commonly had on-site facilities for angiography and revascularization. These procedures were performed more often and sooner in the United States than Canada, whereas Canadian patients were more likely to undergo noninvasive stress testing. The length of initial hospital stay was 1 day longer for Canadian than US patients. Recurrent and refractory ischemia was more common in Canada. One-year mortality was comparable between the 2 countries. However, at 6 months, even after baseline differences were accounted for, the (re)MI rate was significantly higher in Canadian than US patients with unstable angina (8.8% versus 5.8%, P:=0.039), as was the composite rate of death or (re)MI (13.1% versus 9.1%, P:=0.016).
One-year mortality was comparable between Canada and the United States in both MI and unstable angina cohorts despite higher intervention rates in the United States. However, outcomes at 6 months among patients with unstable angina differed. Whereas more frequent coronary interventions were not associated with reduced recurrent MI or death among MI patients without ST elevation, they may favorably affect outcomes in patients with unstable angina.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To evaluate the impact of the diagnostic test setting—inpatient versus outpatient—on adverse cardiac events (ACEs) after six months in emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain who were admitted to the hospital and subsequently had a negative evaluation for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: The authors retrospectively studied a consecutive sample of ED patients with chest pain over a nine-month period. All patients were admitted to the hospital and underwent negative evaluations for ACS, defined as the absence of diagnostic changes on serial electrocardiograms or cardiac markers (creatine kinase—MB and troponin T), and a negative diagnostic cardiac study. Subjects were classified according to cardiac diagnostic study setting—either inpatient or outpatient. Diagnostic testing included exercise treadmill, angiography, stress echocardiography, or stress thallium scans. Acute cardiac events at six months were defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, cardiac arrest, or emergent revascularization. Results: The six-month rate of ACEs among 157 subjects was 14%, with 2% cardiac mortality. The outpatient group had higher ACE risk when compared with the inpatient group using multivariate logistic regression, both for the entire cohort (OR 3.5, p < 0.03) and for a subgroup excluding patients with prior coronary artery disease (OR 6.7, p < 0.05). The outpatient group included 19 of 52 (37%) noncompliant subjects who did not receive a diagnostic study. Conclusions: Long-term cardiac morbidity of patients after a negative ACS evaluation may be higher than previously thought. Risk of ACE is significantly higher in subjects scheduled for outpatient diagnostic tests. Inpatient diagnostic testing is justified for subjects at risk for poor compliance.
    Academic Emergency Medicine 08/2002; 9(9):896 - 902. DOI:10.1197/aemj.9.9.896 · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine whether alvimopan for prevention of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing small- or large-bowel resection by laparotomy is associated with lower total costs compared with standard care. Pharmacoeconomic analysis using a formal decision model. Four phase III clinical trials, two pooled analyses, and one meta-analysis. A cohort of patients who underwent bowel resection with primary anastomosis by laparotomy and received either standardized, accelerated postoperative care (usual care) or usual care plus alvimopan. Clinical outcomes, obtained from pooled analyses of published studies, were time to discharge order written, postoperative nasogastric tube insertion, postoperative ileus-related readmission within 7 days, and occurrence of nausea and vomiting. Cost inputs included drugs, nursing labor, readmissions, and hospitalizations. Costs were assessed by determining the net cost of alvimopan use and subsequent reduction in length of stay. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Costs for alvimopan were $570 based on an average of 9.5 doses. Given the 18.4-hour mean reduction in time to discharge order written, use of alvimopan reduced hospitalization costs by $2021. Mean difference in overall cost of care, as determined by Monte Carlo simulation, was $1168 (95% certainty interval -$437 to $5879), favoring the use of alvimopan. In the sensitivity analysis, association of alvimopan with lower costs was robust to several changes in key parameters including cost and number of doses of alvimopan, time to discharge order written, readmission rates, and hospitalization cost. In the scenario analyses, alvimopan use yielded a net cost of $226 when no difference in time to discharge order written was assumed. In the scenario analysis using data from a study that did not enforce opioid use, alvimopan resulted in a cost saving of $65/patient. Alvimopan was cost saving for prevention of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing bowel resection by laparotomy, although these potential cost savings were highly dependent on a difference in time to discharge order written. This finding is not applicable to the less-invasive laparoscopic surgical approach for which quality data on alvimopan use are lacking. Limitations of this analysis included use of time to discharge order written as a proxy for length of stay and difficulty interpreting study results due to inconsistent reporting and conduct of the clinical trials evaluating alvimopan. More research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of alvimopan.
    Pharmacotherapy 02/2012; 32(2):120-8. DOI:10.1002/PHAR.1047 · 2.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), demographics, procedural characteristics and adjunctive medications differ globally. We examined whether there were differential effects of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in the multinational TRITON-TIMI 38 study. We divided the enrollment into 5 pre-specified geographic regions. Patients were randomized to prasugrel or clopidogrel without regard to country of enrollment. End points are expressed as Kaplan-Meier failure estimates through 15 months. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards model. Additional sensitivity analyses were performed by dividing countries into categories based on the Human Development Index (HDI), which is a composite measure of social and economic development. 13,608 patients were enrolled. Clinical characteristics including age, comorbidities, ACS presentation, stent types, and adjunctive medications differed broadly among regions. Despite these differences, no regional heterogeneity was observed with prasugrel compared to clopidogrel in the reduction of ischemic events (HR range: 0.76-0.87, p(interaction)>0.10 for each) and stent thrombosis (HR range: 0.34-0.72, p(interaction)>0.10 for each) or in the increased rate of non-CABG TIMI major bleeding (HR range: 1.16-1.76, p(interaction)>0.10 for each). There was a consistent trend in net clinical benefit (all cause death/MI/stroke/non-CABG TIMI major bleeding) favoring prasugrel (HR range: 0.81-0.97, p(interaction)>0.10 for each). Consistent results were also observed regarding the safety and efficacy of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in both developed and developing countries. Despite differences in patient demographics, procedural techniques and adjunctive medications, consistent reduction in ischemic events and increased bleeding were seen with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel throughout the world.
    International journal of cardiology 11/2010; 155(3):424-9. DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.10.040 · 6.18 Impact Factor