BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the treatment and long-term outcome of patients with renal dysfunction across the broad spectrum of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in Canada. OBJECTIVES: To examine the treatment patterns and outcome of ACS patients with renal dysfunction. METHODS: In the prospective, multicentre, Canadian ACS Registry, 3510 patients hospitalized for ACS (including unstable angina, ST and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction) were categorized into four groups: normal renal function (creatinine clearance [CrCl] 90 mL/min or greater; n=1152), mild renal dysfunction (CrCl 60 mL/min to 89 mL/min; n=1253), moderate renal dysfunction (CrCl 30 mL/min to 59 mL/min; n=944) and severe renal dysfunction (CrCl less than 30 mL/min; n=161). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the independent prognostic value of renal dysfunction, and the association of various therapies with one-year survival. RESULTS: All-cause mortality at one year was 2.8%, 6.4%, 14.5% and 40.9% in patients with normal renal function, and mild, moderate and severe renal dysfunction, respectively (P for trend<0.001). After adjusting for other prognosticators, moderate (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.08) and severe (OR 6.29, 95% CI 3.37 to 11.77) renal dysfunction remained independent predictors of one-year death. Patients with renal dysfunction were less likely to receive fibrinolytic therapy, to undergo coronary angiography and revascularization in hospital, and to be treated with acetylsalicylic acid, beta-blockers and lipid-lowering therapy at discharge and at one-year follow-up. The association of in-hospital revascularization, and discharge use of acetylsalicylic acid and beta-blockers with better one-year survival was similar among patients with normal and impaired renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Renal dysfunction is prevalent and independently predicts higher mortality in patients with ACS. The current underutilization of effective therapies may contribute to the poor outcome. There remains an important opportunity to improve care in this high-risk population.
BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the treatment and long-term outcome of patients with renal dysfunction across the broad spectrum of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in Canada. OBJECTIVES: To examine the treatment patterns and outcome of ACS patients with renal dysfunction. METHODS: In the prospective, multicentre, Canadian ACS Registry, 3510 patients hospitalized for ACS (including unstable angina, ST and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction) were categorized into four groups: normal renal function (creatinine clearance [CrCl] 90 mL/min or greater; n=1152), mild renal dysfunction (CrCl 60 mL/min to 89 mL/min; n=1253), moderate renal dysfunction (CrCl 30 mL/min to 59 mL/min; n=944) and severe renal dysfunction (CrCl less than 30 mL/min; n=161). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the independent prognostic value of renal dysfunction, and the association of various therapies with one-year survival. RESULTS: All-cause mortality at one year was 2.8%, 6.4%, 14.5% and 40.9% in patients with normal renal function, and mild, moderate and severe renal dysfunction, respectively (P for trend<0.001). After adjusting for other prognosticators, moderate (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.08) and severe (OR 6.29, 95% CI 3.37 to 11.77) renal dysfunction remained independent predictors of one-year death. Patients with renal dysfunction were less likely to receive fibrinolytic therapy, to undergo coronary angiography and revascularization in hospital, and to be treated with acetylsalicylic acid, beta-blockers and lipid-lowering therapy at discharge and at one-year follow-up. The association of in-hospital revascularization, and discharge use of acetylsalicylic acid and beta-blockers with better one-year survival was similar among patients with normal and impaired renal function. CONCLUSIONS:Renal dysfunction is prevalent and independently predicts higher mortality in patients with ACS. The current underutilization of effective therapies may contribute to the poor outcome. There remains an important opportunity to improve care in this high-risk population.
Authors: James L Januzzi; Christopher P Cannon; Peter M DiBattiste; Sabina Murphy; William Weintraub; Eugene Braunwald Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-12-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Rosario V Freeman; Rajendra H Mehta; Wisam Al Badr; Jeanna V Cooper; Eva Kline-Rogers; Kim A Eagle Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-03-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Peter A McCullough; Keisha R Sandberg; Steven Borzak; Michael P Hudson; Mukesh Garg; Harold J Manley Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: R Scott Wright; Guy S Reeder; Charles A Herzog; Robert C Albright; Brent A Williams; David L Dvorak; Wayne L Miller; Joseph G Murphy; Stephen L Kopecky; Allan S Jaffe Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: J J Santopinto; K A A Fox; R J Goldberg; A Budaj; G Piñero; A Avezum; D Gulba; J Esteban; J M Gore; J Johnson; E P Gurfinkel Journal: Heart Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Jassim Al Suwaidi; Donal N Reddan; Kathryn Williams; Karen S Pieper; Robert A Harrington; Robert M Califf; Christopher B Granger; E Magnus Ohman; David R Holmes Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-08-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Andrew T Yan; Mary Tan; David Fitchett; Chi-Ming Chow; Ronald A Fowlis; Thomas G McAvinue; Matthew T Roe; Eric D Peterson; Jack V Tu; Anatoly Langer; Shaun G Goodman Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2004-07-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Artur Dziewierz; Zbigniew Siudak; Tomasz Rakowski; Jacek S Dubiel; Dariusz Dudek Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 2.300