Use of combination evidence-based medical therapy prior to acute myocardial infarction (from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction-4)

Risk factor burden and control at the time of admission in patients with acute myocardial infarction: Results from the NCDR

BACKGROUND

Understanding risk factor burden and control as well as perceived risk prior to acute myocardial infarction (MI) presentation may identify gaps in contemporary systems of care.

METHODS

Patients presenting with MI in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry--Get With the Guidelines between January 2007 and November 2013 (N = 443,117) were stratified into 5 mutually exclusive risk categories: Framingham Risk Score (FRS) <10% 74,990 (16.9%), FRS 10% to 20% 90,429 (20.4%), FRS >20% 25,701 (5.8%), diabetes without cardiovascular disease (CVD) 67,779 (15.3%), and prior CVD 184,218 (41.6%). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) goals and statin eligibility were determined based on the Third Adult Treatment Panel.

RESULTS

At presentation, 66.3% met the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal, 66.8% met the non-HDL-C goal, 63.7% were nonsmokers, and 65.1% of patients with prior CVD were on aspirin. Only 36.1% of patients met all assessed risk factor control metrics. Overall statin eligibility prior to MI was 60.8%, and 61.1% of statin-eligible patients reported statin use.

CONCLUSION

Risk factor control prior to MI was suboptimal, with the majority of individuals failing to meet at least 1 risk factor control metric. More effective system-based interventions are needed to promote adherence to prevention targets.

Thirty-year (1975 to 2005) trends in the incidence rates, clinical features, treatment practices, and short-term outcomes of patients <55 years of age hospitalized with an initial acute myocardial infarction

Sparse data are available describing recent trends in the magnitude, clinical features, treatment practices, and outcomes of comparatively young adults hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The objectives of this population-based study were to describe 3 decade-long trends (1975 to 2005) in these end points in adults <55 years old who were hospitalized with an initial AMI. The study population consisted of 1,703 residents of the Worcester (Massachusetts) metropolitan area 25 to 54 years of age who were hospitalized with initial AMIs at all central Massachusetts medical centers during 15 annual periods from 1975 through 2005. Overall hospital incidence rate (per 100,000 residents) of initial AMI in our study population was 66 (95% confidence interval 63 to 69) and incidence rates of AMI decreased inconsistently over time. Patients hospitalized during the most recent study years were more likely to have important cardiovascular risk factors and co-morbidities present but were less likely to have developed heart failure during their index hospitalization. In-hospital and 30-day death rates decreased by approximately 50% (p = 0.04) during the years under study concomitant with increasing use of effective cardiac therapies. In conclusion, the results of this community-wide investigation provide insights into the magnitude, changing characteristics, and short-term outcomes of comparatively young patients hospitalized with a first AMI. Decreasing odds of developing or dying from an initial AMI during the 30 years under study likely reflect increased primary and secondary prevention and treatment efforts.

Recent hospitalization for non-coronary events and use of preventive medications for coronary artery disease: an observational cohort study

Background

High-quality systems have adopted a comprehensive approach to preventive care instead of diagnosis or procedure driven care. The current emphasis on prescribing medications to prevent complications of coronary artery disease (CAD) at discharge following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) may exclude high-risk patients who are hospitalized with conditions other than ACS.

Methods

Among a sample of patients with CAD treated at Veterans Affairs medical centers between January, 2005 and November, 2006, we investigated whether recent non-ACS hospitalization was associated with prescriptions of preventive medications as compared with patients recently hospitalized with ACS.

Results

Of 13,211 patients with CAD, 58% received aspirin, 70% β-blocker, 60% angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), and 65% lipid-lowering therapy. Twenty-five percent of eligible patients were receiving all four medications. Having been hospitalized for a non-ACS event in the prior 6 months did not substantially affect the adjusted proportion on preventive medications. In contrast, among patients hospitalized for ACS in the prior 6 months, the adjusted proportion prescribed aspirin was 21% higher (p < 0.001), β-blocker was 14% higher (p < 0.001), ACE-I or ARB was 9% higher (p < 0.001), lipid therapy was 12% higher (p < 0.001), and prescribed all four medications was 18% higher (p < 0.001) than among patients hospitalized for ACS more than 2 years earlier.

Conclusions

Being hospitalized for a non-ACS condition did not appear to influence preventive medication use among patients with CAD and represents a missed opportunity to improve patient care. The same protocols employed to improve use of preventive medications in patients discharged for ACS might be extended to CAD patients discharged for other conditions as well.

Prior cardiovascular interventions are not associated with worsened clinical outcomes in patients with symptomatic atherothrombosis

To assess the effect of prior cardiovascular interventions on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with symptomatic atherothrombosis, the risk factor profiles, treatment patterns, and 24-month outcomes of patients in the United States with and without prior cardiovascular intervention (catheter-based, surgical, or lower-limb amputation) enrolled in the global REACH (REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health) Registry were compared. Of the 17,521 US outpatients aged > or =45 years with established coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral artery disease enrolled in the REACH Registry between December 1, 2003 and June 1, 2004 who had > or =1 follow-up visit, 11,925 (68.1%) had a previous cardiovascular intervention. Prior intervention was most common in patients with coronary artery disease (76.7%) and least common in patients with cerebrovascular disease (14.6%) at baseline. Patients with prior cardiovascular intervention were significantly more likely to be taking antihypertensive, antithrombotic, or lipid-lowering therapies than those without prior intervention (P < 0.0001 for each therapy). However, 24-month Kaplan-Meier event rates for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke were similar between patients with and without prior intervention (9.10% vs. 9.00%; P = 0.49). Thus, in the US REACH Registry, prior cardiovascular intervention was not associated with an increased risk of subsequent cardiovascular ischemic events during follow-up. Patients without prior cardiovascular intervention had a lower intensity of risk factor modification at baseline and appear to represent an at-risk, undertreated population.

Contemporary trends in evidence-based treatment for acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction recommend the routine use of 4 effective cardiac medications: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, aspirin, beta-blockers, and lipid-lowering agents. Limited data are available, however, about the contemporary and changing use of these therapies, particularly from a population-based perspective. The study describes differences in the use of these medications during hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction according to age, gender, and period of hospitalization.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 6334 women and men treated at 11 hospitals in the Worcester, Mass, metropolitan area for acute myocardial infarction in 6 annual periods between 1995 and 2005.

RESULTS

Increases in the use of all 4 cardiac medications during hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction were noted between 1995 and 2005 for all men and in those of different age strata: less than 65 years (4%-47%); 65 to 74 years (4%-46%); 75 to 84 years (2%-48%); and more than 85 years (0%-23%). Increases in the use of all 4 cardiac medications also were observed in all women and in those of all ages over time (2%-42%); 65 to 74 years (8%-47%); 75 to 84 years (1%-44%); and more than 85 years (1%-44%).

CONCLUSION

The present results suggest marked increases over time in the use of evidence-based therapies in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. Educational efforts to augment the use of these effective cardiac therapies, as well as attempts to identify suboptimally treated groups, remain warranted.

Treatment practices and outcomes of patients with established peripheral arterial disease hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction in a community setting

BACKGROUND

There are little contemporary data available describing the hospital and long-term outcomes of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) who are hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The objectives of our population-based study were to examine the hospital and long-term outcomes, as well as the use of different treatment practices, among patients with established PAD who were hospitalized with AMI.

METHODS

The study sample consisted of 4480 patients hospitalized with AMI at all Worcester, Mass, medical centers in 4 alternate years between 1997 and 2003.

RESULTS

Among the metropolitan Worcester residents hospitalized with AMI, 13.5% had a history of PAD. Prior use of proven cardiac therapies in patients with, and without, PAD was less than optimal though more often used in patients with prior PAD. Patients with PAD were significantly less likely to be treated with thrombolytic therapy during hospitalization than patients without PAD. Patients with PAD were not at significantly increased risk of dying during hospitalization (adjusted OR 1.29, 0.95% CI 0.97-1.71), though they were at a significantly increased risk of dying at 1 year after hospital discharge (adjusted OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.58-2.52) in comparison with patients without prior PAD.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 1 in 8 patients presenting with AMI in this community-wide study had a history of clinically recognized PAD. These patients are at increased risk of dying during the first year after hospital discharge. Our data indicate that there is a room for improvement for the enhanced use of effective treatment modalities and implementation of secondary prevention strategies in these high-risk patients.