Literature DB >> 24576520

Hospital patterns of medical management strategy use for patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease.

Ralf E Harskamp1, Tracy Y Wang2, Deepak L Bhatt3, Stephen D Wiviott4, Ezra A Amsterdam5, Shuang Li2, Laine Thomas2, Robbert J de Winter6, Matthew T Roe7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and three-vessel or left main coronary disease (3VD/LMD) have a high risk of long-term mortality when treated with a medical management strategy (MMS) compared with revascularization.
METHODS: We evaluated patterns of use and patient features across United States hospitals designated by MMS for NSTEMI patients with 3VD/LMD included in the ACTION Registry-GWTG from 2007-2012.
RESULTS: A total of 42,535 patients without prior bypass surgery were found to have 3VD (≥50% stenosis in all major coronary vessels) or LMD (≥50% lesion) during in-hospital angiography at 423 hospitals with percutaneous and surgical revascularization capabilities. Hospitals (n = 316) with an adequate volume (≥25 NSTEMI patients treated) were stratified into tertiles defined by use of MMS; differences in patient characteristics and outcomes were analyzed. The proportion of NSTEMI patients treated with MMS at all hospitals varied from 16% to 19% each quarter and did not change significantly from 2007 to 2012 (P trend = .11). Among hospitals with adequate volume, the proportion of patients treated with MMS also varied widely (median 17.1%, range: 0.0-44.8%, P < .0001). Patient baseline characteristics, predicted mortality risk, actual in-hospital mortality rates, and discharge treatments were similar across hospital tertiles.
CONCLUSIONS: Close to 20% of patients with NSTEMI and 3VD/LMD identified during in-hospital angiography are treated with MMS without revascularization in contemporary practice. Since the use of MMS varies widely across hospitals despite a relatively similar hospital-level case mix, these findings suggest that there is no standard threshold for the use of revascularization in NSTEMI patients with 3VD/LMD.
Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24576520     DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.12.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  4 in total

1.  Optimal revascularization for left main coronary artery disease-coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Ian C Bostock; Jock N McCullough; Alexander Iribarne
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 2.  Indications, algorithms, and outcomes for coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Authors:  Babatunde A Yerokun; Judson B Williams; Jeffrey Gaca; Peter K Smith; Matthew T Roe
Journal:  Coron Artery Dis       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.439

3.  Treatment of Higher-Risk Patients With an Indication for Revascularization: Evolution Within the Field of Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Authors:  Ajay J Kirtane; Darshan Doshi; Martin B Leon; John M Lasala; E Magnus Ohman; William W O'Neill; Adhir Shroff; Mauricio G Cohen; Igor F Palacios; Nirat Beohar; Nir Uriel; Navin K Kapur; Dimitri Karmpaliotis; William Lombardi; George D Dangas; Manish A Parikh; Gregg W Stone; Jeffrey W Moses
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 39.918

4.  Determinants of the Downward Trend in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Among Patients With Multivessel Disease and Class-I Indication for Surgery.

Authors:  Jabar Ali; Fahad R Khan; Safi Khattak; Hidayat Ullah; Rizwan Ullah; Gul Lakhta
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-03-25
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.