OBJECTIVES: The goals of this analysis were to determine: 1) whether guideline-based care during hospitalization for a myocardial infarction (MI) varied as a function of patients' baseline risk; and 2) whether temporal improvements in guideline adherence occurred in all risk groups. BACKGROUND: Guideline-based care of patients with MI improves outcomes, especially among those at higher risk. Previous studies suggest that this group is paradoxically less likely to receive guideline-based care (risk-treatment mismatch). METHODS: A total of 112,848 patients with MI were enrolled at 279 hospitals participating in Get With The Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease (GWTG-CAD) between August 2000 and December 2008. We developed and validated an in-hospital mortality model (C-statistic: 0.75) to stratify patients into risk tertiles: low (0% to 3%), intermediate (3% to 6.5%), and high (>6.5%). Use of guideline-based care and temporal trends were examined. RESULTS: High-risk patients were significantly less likely to receive aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, statins, diabetic treatment, smoking cessation advice, or cardiac rehabilitation referral at discharge compared with those at lower risk (all p < 0.0001). However, use of guideline-recommended therapies increased significantly in all risk groups per year (low-risk odds ratio: 1.33 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22 to 1.45]; intermediate-risk odds ratio: 1.30 [95% CI: 1.21 to 1.38]; and high-risk odds ratio: 1.30 [95% confidence interval: 1.23 to 1.37]). Also, there was a narrowing in the guideline adherence gap between low- and high-risk patients over time (p = 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Although adherence to guideline-based care remains paradoxically lower in those MI patients at higher risk of mortality and most likely to benefit from treatment, care is improving for eligible patients within all risk categories, and the gaps between low- and high-risk groups seem to be narrowing.
OBJECTIVES: The goals of this analysis were to determine: 1) whether guideline-based care during hospitalization for a myocardial infarction (MI) varied as a function of patients' baseline risk; and 2) whether temporal improvements in guideline adherence occurred in all risk groups. BACKGROUND: Guideline-based care of patients with MI improves outcomes, especially among those at higher risk. Previous studies suggest that this group is paradoxically less likely to receive guideline-based care (risk-treatment mismatch). METHODS: A total of 112,848 patients with MI were enrolled at 279 hospitals participating in Get With The Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease (GWTG-CAD) between August 2000 and December 2008. We developed and validated an in-hospital mortality model (C-statistic: 0.75) to stratify patients into risk tertiles: low (0% to 3%), intermediate (3% to 6.5%), and high (>6.5%). Use of guideline-based care and temporal trends were examined. RESULTS: High-risk patients were significantly less likely to receive aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, statins, diabetic treatment, smoking cessation advice, or cardiac rehabilitation referral at discharge compared with those at lower risk (all p < 0.0001). However, use of guideline-recommended therapies increased significantly in all risk groups per year (low-risk odds ratio: 1.33 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22 to 1.45]; intermediate-risk odds ratio: 1.30 [95% CI: 1.21 to 1.38]; and high-risk odds ratio: 1.30 [95% confidence interval: 1.23 to 1.37]). Also, there was a narrowing in the guideline adherence gap between low- and high-risk patients over time (p = 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Although adherence to guideline-based care remains paradoxically lower in those MI patients at higher risk of mortality and most likely to benefit from treatment, care is improving for eligible patients within all risk categories, and the gaps between low- and high-risk groups seem to be narrowing.
Authors: Dharam J Kumbhani; Brian J Wells; A Michael Lincoff; Anil Jain; Susana Arrigain; Changhong Yu; Marlene Goormastic; Stephen G Ellis; Eugene Blackstone; Michael W Kattan Journal: Am J Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2013-02-17
Authors: David A Katz; Donna M Buchanan; Mark W Vander Weg; Babalola Faseru; Philip A Horwitz; Philip G Jones; John A Spertus Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Dipti Gupta; Fengming Tang; Frederick A Masoudi; Philip G Jones; Paul S Chan; Stacie L Daugherty Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2018 May/Jun Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Jacob A Udell; Gregg C Fonarow; Thomas M Maddox; Christopher P Cannon; W Frank Peacock; Warren K Laskey; Maria V Grau-Sepulveda; Eric E Smith; Adrian F Hernandez; Eric D Peterson; Deepak L Bhatt Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Mohammed Qintar; Kim G Smolderen; Paul S Chan; Kensey L Gosch; Philip G Jones; Donna M Buchanan; Saket Girotra; John A Spertus Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Supriya Shore; Philip G Jones; Thomas M Maddox; Steven M Bradley; Joshua M Stolker; Suzanne V Arnold; Susmita Parashar; Pamela Peterson; Deepak L Bhatt; John Spertus; P Michael Ho Journal: Heart Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Daniel W Mudrick; Bimal R Shah; Lisa A McCoy; Barbara L Lytle; Frederick A Masoudi; Jerome J Federspiel; Patricia A Cowper; Cynthia Green; Pamela S Douglas Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 7.792