Search

Background: Although there are sex differences in management and outcome of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), sex is not a component of Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score (RS) for in-hospital mortality prediction. We sought to determine the prognostic utility of GRACE RS in men and women, and whether its predictive accuracy would be augmented through sex-based modification of its components., Methods: Canadian men and women enrolled in GRACE and Canadian Registry of Acute Coronary Events were stratified as ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). GRACE RS was calculated as per original model. Discrimination and calibration were evaluated using the c-statistic and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was undertaken to assess potential interactions of sex with GRACE RS components., Results: For the overall cohort (n=14,422), unadjusted in-hospital mortality rate was higher in women than men (4.5% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001). Overall, GRACE RS c-statistic and goodness-of-fit test p-value were 0.85 (95% CI 0.83-0.87) and 0.11, respectively. While the RS had excellent discrimination for all subgroups (c-statistics >0.80), discrimination was lower for women compared to men with STEMI [0.80 (0.75-0.84) vs. 0.86 (0.82-0.89), respectively, p<0.05]. The goodness-of-fit test showed good calibration for women (p=0.86), but suboptimal for men (p=0.031). No significant interaction was evident between sex and RS components (all p>0.25)., Conclusions: The GRACE RS is a valid predictor of in-hospital mortality for both men and women with ACS. The lack of interaction between sex and RS components suggests that sex-based modification is not required., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Cardiac arrest in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. We examined the clinical characteristics, contemporary management patterns and outcomes of ACS patients with pre-hospital cardiac arrest., Methods: The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events and the Canadian Registry of Acute Coronary Events enrolled 14,010 ACS patients in 1999-2008. We compared the clinical characteristics, in-hospital treatment and outcomes between patients with and without pre-hospital cardiac arrest., Results: Overall, 206 (1.4%) patients had cardiac arrest prior to hospital presentation. ACS patients with pre-hospital cardiac arrest were less frequently treated with aspirin, β-blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins within the first 24 h of presentation, but the use of cardiac procedures was similar compared to the group without cardiac arrest. Patients with pre-hospital cardiac arrest had significantly higher rates of in-hospital adverse events. Factors independently associated with pre-hospital cardiac arrest included male gender, current smoker status, tachycardia, higher Killip class and ST-segment deviation., Conclusion: ACS patients with pre-hospital cardiac arrest continue to have more in-hospital complications and higher mortality. Their use of evidence-based medical therapies was lower but the use of cardiac procedures was similar compared to the group without cardiac arrest. Better utilization of evidence-based therapies in these patients may translate into improved outcomes., (Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: There are limited data on the contemporary management and outcomes of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients with diabetes in the "real world." We sought to evaluate (1) the temporal changes in the medical and invasive management and (2) in-hospital outcome of NSTE-ACS patients with and without diabetes., Methods: We included Canadian patients hospitalized for NSTE-ACS enrolled in 4 consecutive, prospective, multicenter registries: Canadian ACS-I (n = 3259; 1999-2001), ACS-II (n = 1,956; 2002-2003), Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE/GRACE2 [n = 7,561; 2004-2007]) and Canadian Registry of Acute Coronary Events (n = 1,326; 2008). Participants were stratified by the presence or absence of preexisting diabetes on admission. Temporal changes in patient management and outcomes were evaluated across the 4 registries. Multivariable analyses were performed to determine the independent prognostic significance of diabetes., Results: Of the 14,102 NSTE-ACS patients, 4,046 (28.7%) had previously diagnosed diabetes. Patients with diabetes were older; were more likely to have prior cardiac history including myocardial infarction, revascularization, and heart failure; and had worse Killip class and higher GRACE risk score (all P < .001). Over time, there were significant increases in the use of in-hospital coronary angiography and revascularization. However, diabetic patients were less likely to undergo coronary angiography (52.5% vs 57%, P < .001) or revascularization (28.4% vs 33.4%, P < .001). The underuse of invasive procedures in diabetic patients was seen in all registries and was persistent over time. Overall, compared with the group without diabetes, diabetic patients had higher unadjusted rates of in-hospital mortality (3.0% vs 1.6%, P < .001). In multivariable analysis adjusting for components of the GRACE risk score, diabetes remained an independent predictor of in-hospital death (adjusted odds ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.30-2.11, P < .001)., Conclusions: Over the last decade, NSTE-ACS patients with diabetes continue to be treated more conservatively, despite evidence that they would derive similar or even greater benefits from aggressive treatment. This underutilization of evidence-based therapies among diabetic patients with NSTE-ACS in the "real world" may partly explain their worse outcome., (Copyright © 2011 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Previous studies have questioned the external validity of randomized controlled trial results of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) because of potential selection bias toward healthier patients. We sought to evaluate differences in clinical characteristics and management of patients admitted with non-ST-elevation ACS according to participation in clinical trials over the previous decade. The Canadian ACS I (1999 to 2001), ACS II (2002-2003), GRACE (2004-2007), and CANRACE (2008) were prospective, multicenter registries of patients admitted to hospitals with ACS. We examined 13,556 patients with non-ST-elevation ACS, of whom 1,126 (8.3%) participated in clinical trials. Data were collected on baseline characteristics, medication use at admission and discharge, in-hospital procedures, and in-hospital adverse events. Patients enrolled in clinical trials were younger, more likely to be men, and had fewer co-morbidities. They were significantly more likely to be on several guideline-recommended medications and were significantly more likely to undergo invasive procedures, including coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary bypass surgery (all p values <0.001). Unadjusted in-hospital (2.1% vs 0.7%, p = 0.001) and 1-year (8.9% vs 6.3%, p = 0.037) mortality rates were higher in non-enrolled patients. In multivariable analysis, patients who were older, women, had a history of heart failure, and increased creatinine levels on presentation were less likely to be enrolled into clinical trials. In conclusion, significant differences persist in baseline characteristics, treatment, and outcomes between patients enrolled and those not enrolled in clinical trials. Consequently, generalization of ACS clinical trials over the previous decade to the "real-world" patient may remain in question., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients in the highest risk categories are least likely to receive evidence-based treatments (EBTs). We sought to determine why physicians do not prescribe EBTs for patients with non-ST-segment-elevation ACSs and the factors determining use of these treatments after 1 year., Methods and Results: One thousand nine hundred fifty-six non-ST-segment-elevation ACS patients were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter Canadian ACS registry II between October 2002 and December 2003. Each patient's physician gave reasons why guideline-indicated medication(s) was not prescribed during hospitalization. Medication use and reason(s) for discontinuation after 1 year were obtained by telephone interview of the patients. The commonest reason for not prescribing EBTs was "not high-enough risk" or "no evidence/guidelines to support use." However, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events scores of patients not treated for this reason were often similar to or higher than those of patients prescribed such treatment. After 1 year, 77% of patients not on optimal ACS treatment at discharge remained without optimal treatment, and overall antiplatelet, β-blocker, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use declined. Approximately one third of patients not taking EBTs had stopped their medication without instruction from their doctor., Conclusions: Nonprovision of EBTs may be due to subjective underestimation of patient risk and hence, likely treatment benefit. Oversights in care delivery were also apparent. Objective risk stratification, combined with efforts to ensure provision and adherence to EBTs, should be encouraged.