Literature DB >> 21059426

Comparison of baseline characteristics, management and outcome of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in versus not in clinical trials.

Adam B Hutchinson-Jaffe1, Shaun G Goodman, Raymond T Yan, Ron Wald, Basem Elbarouni, Barry Rose, Kim A Eagle, Christopher C Lai, Carolyn Baer, Anatoly Langer, Andrew T Yan.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21059426     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.06.070

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  6 in total

1.  Competing Risks of Cardiovascular Versus Noncardiovascular Death During Long-Term Follow-Up After Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Authors:  Alexander C Fanaroff; Matthew T Roe; Robert M Clare; Yuliya Lokhnygina; Ann Marie Navar; Robert P Giugliano; Stephen D Wiviott; Andrew M Tershakovec; Eugene Braunwald; Michael A Blazing
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 5.501

2.  Comparison of invasive treatment strategies in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rikuta Hamaya; Yuan Ting Chang; Api Chewcharat; Nicholas Chiu; Taishi Yonetsu; Tsunekazu Kakuta; Stefania Papatheodorou
Journal:  JTCVS Open       Date:  2021-09-08

3.  A literature review on the representativeness of randomized controlled trial samples and implications for the external validity of trial results.

Authors:  Tessa Kennedy-Martin; Sarah Curtis; Douglas Faries; Susan Robinson; Joseph Johnston
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 4.  Anticoagulants for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction: lessons from the past decade.

Authors:  Dan Atar; Christoph Bode; André Stuerzenbecher; Freek W A Verheugt
Journal:  Fundam Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-03-10       Impact factor: 2.748

5.  Linkage of the CHHiP randomised controlled trial with primary care data: a study investigating ways of supplementing cancer trials and improving evidence-based practice.

Authors:  Agnieszka Lemanska; Rachel C Byford; Clare Cruickshank; David P Dearnaley; Filipa Ferreira; Clare Griffin; Emma Hall; William Hinton; Simon de Lusignan; Julian Sherlock; Sara Faithfull
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-07-25       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Translating evidence into practice: eligibility criteria fail to eliminate clinically significant differences between real-world and study populations.

Authors:  Amelia J Averitt; Chunhua Weng; Patrick Ryan; Adler Perotte
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2020-05-11
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.