Quality of care by classification of myocardial infarction: treatment patterns for ST-segment elevation vs non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
Archives of Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 11.46). 08/2005; 165(14):1630-6. DOI:10.1001/archinte.165.14.1630
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Practice guidelines for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) recommend similar therapies and interventions, but differences in patterns of care between MI categories have not been well described in contemporary practice.
In-hospital treatments with similar recommendations from practice guidelines were compared with outcomes in 185 968 eligible patients (without listed contraindications) with STEMI (n = 53 417; 29%) vs NSTEMI (n = 132 551; 71%) from 1247 US hospitals participating in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 4 between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2002. Hierarchical logistic regression modeling was used to determine adjusted differences in treatment patterns in MI categories.
Unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates were high for NSTEMI (12.5%) and STEMI (14.3%), and the use of guideline-recommended medications and interventions was suboptimal in both categories of patients with MI. The adjusted likelihood of receiving early (within 24 hours of presentation) aspirin, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors was higher in patients with STEMI. Similar patterns of care were noted at hospital discharge: the adjusted likelihood of receiving aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, lipid-lowering agents, smoking cessation counseling, and cardiac rehabilitation referral was higher in patients with STEMI.
Evidence-based medications and lifestyle modification interventions were used less frequently in patients with NSTEMI. Quality improvement interventions designed to narrow the gaps in care between NSTEMI and STEMI and to improve adherence to guidelines for both categories of patients with MI may reduce the high mortality rates associated with acute MI in contemporary practice.

0 0
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: RATIONALE: Despite the availability of various prevention guidelines on acute coronary syndrome (ACS), secondary prevention practice utilizing aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and statins still can be sub-optimal. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To review and document the utilization of pharmacotherapy for the secondary prevention of ACS in patients discharged from a Malaysian hospital. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Penang, Malaysia. Patients with a primary diagnosis of ACS were identified from medical records over a 4-month period. A range of clinical data was extracted from medical records, including medical history, clinical presentation and pharmacotherapy both on admission and at discharge. This audit focused on the use of four guideline-recommended therapies: aspirin±clopidogrel, beta-blockers, statins and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). RESULTS: Data pertaining to a total of 380 ACS patients was extracted and reviewed, the mean age of the study population was 57.49 years and 73.9% of population was males. Patients with unstable angina accounted for 56.6% of the admissions whereas 23.4% and 20% of the patients were admitted for ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation infarct respectively. 95.7% of the patients received antiplatelets comprising of at least aspirin, and 82% received aspirin plus clopidogrel. Furthermore, 80.3% of the patients received a beta-blocker at discharge, 95% a statin and 69.7% received either an ACEI or ARB. Compared with patients who presented with myocardial infarction (with or without ST-segment elevation), those presenting with unstable angina were less likely to receive the combination of aspirin plus clopidogrel or an ACEI/ARB at discharge. Patients over 65 years of age were also less likely to receive a beta-blocker at discharge, compared with younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is a good adherence to evidence-based guidelines for the secondary prevention of ACS in this local setting. However, there is some potential underutilization in the older population and patients presenting with unstable angina.
    Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 08/2013; 19(4):658-663. · 1.51 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients who suffer a first ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) typically have fewer identifiable risk factors than those who suffer other types of acute coronary syndromes. As such, risk assessment tools such as the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) often fail to classify these patients as high risk. In this study, we tested the ability of assessment of carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) to enhance the ability to identify patients who are at risk for STEMI, using a CIMT-derived "vascular age" in place of chronologic age in the calculation of FRS. We applied a CIMT-based vascular age to the assessment of FRS in a cohort of patients who presented with a first STEMI. Using CIMT-derived vascular age in place of chronologic age increased both the mean FRS and predicted 10 year cardiovascular event rate of the cohort. More importantly, the use of a CIMT-derived vascular age in the calculation of FRS significantly improved the ability to identify patients with STEMI as high risk and candidates for statin therapy based on ATPIII criteria (19.2% vs. 57.7%, P = 0.010). The use of CIMT to derive a vascular age may improve the ability of FRS to identify patients at risk for STEMI.
    Echocardiography 08/2013; · 1.26 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the proven efficacy of evidence-based therapy in patients with cardiovascular diseases, the recommendations are not always instituted. We aimed to analyse the compliance of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients with treatment guidelines and to assess the impact of these measures in hospital death during the index hospitalization. All consecutive patients (pts) included in the Portuguese Registry on Acute Coronary Syndromes (ProACS) between January 1, 2002 and August 31, 2011 were analysed. Compliance with Guidelines for the management of NSTE-ACS was evaluated with a 6-point therapeutic score (ThSc), comprising the treatment with: aspirin, clopidogrel, heparin, beta-blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and statin. One point was assigned for each drug prescribed and zero if not given. The total therapeutic compliance was defined as ThSc =6 points. The final analysis comprised 14,276 pts (67.1% male; mean age 67.6±12.3 years), most of them admitted with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (77.4%). The mean value of ThSc was 4.9±1.1 and total compliance occurred in 36.7% pts. Centres with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capacity had a statistically significant higher ThSc (5.0±1.0 vs. 4.8±1.1, P<0.001) and were associated with higher total compliance [OR 1.53, 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.42-1.65, P<0.001]. In-hospital mortality was 2.4% (354 deaths). Compared to pts who died, the survivors had a higher ThSc (4.9±1.1 vs. 4.2±1.3, P<0.001) and this score was independently associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.70, 95% CI, 0.64-0.77, P<0.001). Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis showed a good accuracy of ThSc for the occurrence of in-hospital mortality with the area under the curve (AUC) 0.82 (95% CI, 0.80-0.84, P<0.001), sensitivity 71.6% and specificity 78.0%. Age, peripheral artery disease, Killip-Kimball class >I, electrocardiogram (ECG) with ST-segment depression and positive troponin were other independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. In the present study, patients with NSTE-ACS who received medications recommended by guidelines had better in-hospital outcomes. These findings highlight the need to clarify the clinical recommendations and to develop approaches for quality improvement in this subset of patients.
    Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy. 02/2014; 4(1):13-20.