Medical therapy for elderly patients who have had myocardial infarction: too little to the late in life?

Age-associated time delays in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction with primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

Multiple studies have shown that age is a significant factor associated with suboptimal treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We performed a retrospective pilot study using a chart review of patients who presented with AMI who were subsequently treated with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) from November 1995 to January 1997 at our institution. Ninety-four patients met inclusion criteria, with 5 excluded for insufficient data. Mean time for "door-to-balloon" in all patients was 118 +/- 48 minutes. The mean patient age was 60 years. Mean times (minutes) for patients grouped by decades of life are as follows: 143 +/- 59 (30-39 years), 114 +/- 51 (40-49 years), 99 +/- 41 (50-59 years), 116 +/- 44 (60-69 years), 135 +/- 47 (70-79 years), and 133 +/- 133 (80 years and older). Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance ( P = 0.04). In this study, age was associated with treatment delays. There was a parabolic relationship of age with time, with a greater time delay occurring in "younger" and "older" patients.

Post myocardial infarction treatment in the older adult

Treatments for acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) have advanced over the past few decades. Although AMIs are considered medical emergencies, continuing research has provided protocols and guidelines that significantly decrease mortality and reinfarction rates. Beta-blockers and aspirin are considered standard treatment for post-AMI patients; however, studies involving the elderly reveal that this population is less likely to receive beta-blocker and aspirin therapy. This article discusses current recommendations and treatments for post-AMI elderly patients.

Decade-long trends (1986 to 1997) in the medical treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction: A community-wide perspective

BACKGROUND

Although there are an increasing number and variety of medications available for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), few data are available describing recent, and changes over time in, use of different cardiac medications in patients with AMI from a more generalizable, community-wide perspective. Moreover, it is unclear whether the demographic and clinical profile of patients receiving these agents is similar or varies according to the type of agent prescribed.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to examine recent patterns and changes over a decade-long period (1986 to 1997) in the use of cardiac medications during the acute hospitalization and at the time of hospital discharge in metropolitan Worcester, Mass, residents (1990 census estimate, 437,000) hospitalized with confirmed AMI. There was a marked increase in the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, aspirin, beta-blockers, lipid-lowering agents, and thrombolytic therapy between 1986 and 1997. The use of calcium antagonists, lidocaine, and other antiarrhythmic agents declined over this period. Similar trends were observed in the use of these agents in hospital survivors at the time of hospital discharge. Patient age, presence of comorbidities, and AMI-associated characteristics influenced the use of these therapies; sex differences in the use of several of these medications were also noted.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this population-based observational study provide insights into changing prescribing patterns in the hospital treatment of patients with AMI. Despite encouraging increases in the use of several of these agents, considerable opportunities for increased utilization remain.

Post myocardial infarction treatment in the older adult

Treatments for acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) have advanced over the past few decades. Although AMIs are considered medical emergencies, continuing research has provided protocols and guidelines that significantly decrease mortality and reinfarction rates. Beta-blockers and aspirin are considered standard treatment for post-AMI patients; however, studies involving the elderly reveal that this population is less likely to receive beta-blocker and aspirin therapy. This article discusses current recommendations and treatments for post-AMI elderly patients.

[Analysis of drug consumption with indicators of prescription quality]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of pharmaceutical prescription by means of various indicators.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, retrospective study.

SETTING

Non-hospital prescription in all the INSALUD provinces, except Ceuta and Melilla, for a year (1997).

MEASUREMENTS

Different quality indicators were analysed for the following groups of medicines: oral diabetes drugs, anti-platelet aggregation drugs, anti-hypertension drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, tranquillisers and hypnotic drugs, antibiotics, anti-asthmatic drugs and the omeprazol efficiency indicator. Consumption was expressed in defined daily doses (DDD) and in DDD per 1000 persons and per day (DID). A prescription quality indicator was indicated on the basis of weighing up the indicators.

RESULTS

The sulphonylurea drugs varied greatly (15-56%) and deviated negatively a lot from the standard value. AAS and ticlopidine made up 74% of the anti-platelet aggregation drugs. Consumption of calcium antagonists was three times greater than of beta-blockers. Captopril and enalapril were 65% of the ACE inhibitors. Ibuprofen, naproxen and diclofenac made up between 34 and 50% of the NSAIDs. The DID of hypnotics was 44 against a standard figure of 24. Use of first-level antibiotics was 77%. Inhaled adrenergic drugs came to 80% of total anti-asthmatic drugs. The cost of omeprazol treatment per day was 267 pesetas/DID, which was inefficient in comparison with the standard of 190. All provinces had a prescription quality indicator above six out of ten.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACE inhibitors, anti-asthmatic drugs and antibiotics were close to the standard. The use of sulphonylurea drugs, beta-blockers, NSAIDs and hypnotics was a long way from standard. The prescription level was acceptable in the different provinces.

Treatment for the secondary prevention of stroke in older patients: the influence of dementia status

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influence of dementia status on treatment for the secondary prevention of stroke in older patients.

DESIGN

Based on patient examinations and medical record review, we investigated the frequency of aspirin and/or warfarin use at hospital discharge for the prevention of recurrent stroke in older patients hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke.

SETTING

A large academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

A cohort of 272 patients, mean age 72.1 +/- 8.5 years.

MEASUREMENTS

We performed neurologic examinations and reviewed medical records to investigate the effects of a clinical diagnosis of dementia and other potentially relevant factors on treatment with aspirin or warfarin at hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients (11.4%) were not prescribed aspirin or warfarin at hospital discharge. Logistic regression determined that dementia (odds ratio (OR) = 2.57, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04-6.30) was a significant independent determinant of nontreatment with aspirin or warfarin, adjusting for abnormal gait (OR = 2.01, CI, .88-4.59); discharge to a nursing home or other institutional residence (OR = 2.55, CI, .83-7.81); cardiac disease (OR = .39, CI, .16-.95); cortical infarct location (OR = .45, CI, .18-1.10); male sex (OR = .47, CI, .20-1.15); age 80+ (OR = 1.14, CI, .46-2.82) and age 70-79 (OR = .96, CI, .32-2.88) versus age 60-69.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that dementia is a significant independent determinant of nontreatment with aspirin or warfarin when otherwise indicated for the prevention of recurrent stroke. The underutilization of aspirin and warfarin in older stroke patients with dementia may be a modifiable basis for their increased risk of recurrence and death.

The treatment and prevention of coronary heart disease in Canada: do older patients receive efficacious therapies? The Clinical Quality Improvement Network (CQIN) Investigators

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence for clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of proven medications in the treatment and prevention of myocardial infarction (MI) in older patients; to summarize Canadian data on treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for younger and older patients with coronary heart disease; to explore the reasons for gaps between best care, based on the evidence of efficacy from trials, and usual care, based on the population effectiveness audits; and to explore potential approaches to closing the care gaps.

DESIGN

Review of the recent clinical trial literature on the management of MI, highlighting results in older patients. Review of medication utilization and outcomes data from a series of large, consecutively enrolled patient cohorts with acute MI (N = 7070) in a variety of cardiac care settings (10 centers in five Canadian provinces, including university-based teaching hospitals, community hospitals, cardiologist and family physician out-patient clinics) from 1987 to 1996.

RESULTS

There is no qualitative interaction of cardiac therapies: thrombolytics, beta-blockers, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), and statins are efficacious in all clinically relevant patient subgroups, including older people. However, there are consistent gaps between usual care and best care, particularly among older patients (in whom there is also a concomitantly higher mortality risk). Repeated multivariate analyses confirm older age to be an independent contributor to increased risk. Use of efficacious medications is, in contrast, consistently associated with increased survival. Analysis of temporal trends suggests beneficial changes in practice patterns and outcomes are possible to achieve. However, "best care" has not been rapidly or completely achieved. Review of strategies to close these care gaps suggests that audit and feedback, critical pathways, and multifactorial interventions involving patients and other members of the healthcare team as well as physicians may be the most efficacious strategies for change.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite equal or enhanced efficacy, there is consistently less prescription of proven drugs among older cardiac patients. These care patterns may contribute to their enhanced risk. The causes underlying these practice patterns are complex, and their population impact may be undervalued by clinicians and managers. Improvement of these patterns is difficult, but ultimately it would be beneficial for this presently disadvantaged, readily identified, high risk patient population.

Antiischemic therapy in patients with coronary heart disease living in long-term care. Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Drug Use by Epidemiology (SAGE) Group

We evaluated antiischemic therapy in elderly nursing home residents with a diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD) using a population-based data base with over 300,000 residents (1992-1995) of all Medicare/Medicaid-certified nursing homes of five states. We identified 72,263 patients age 65 years or older with a diagnosis of CHD. We examined data collected with the federally mandated Minimum Data Set, drug information, and Medicare hospital claims. Antiischemics were defined as beta-adrenergic blockers, long-term nitrates, and calcium channel blockers. We determined factors associated with use of the drugs by logistic regression. Antiischemic therapy was inversely related to age and cognitive and physical functioning, but positively associated with recent hospitalization and concomitant cardiovascular diseases. beta-Adrenergic blockers were least likely to be administered regardless of age, gender, or cognitive or physical function. We conclude that antiischemic therapy in nursing home residents may not be optimal.

Effect of beta-blockade on mortality among high-risk and low-risk patients after myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Long-term administration of beta-adrenergic blockers to patients after myocardial infarction improves survival. However, physicians are reluctant to administer beta-blockers to many patients, such as older patients and those with chronic pulmonary disease, left ventricular dysfunction, or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction.

METHODS

The medical records of 201,752 patients with myocardial infarction were abstracted by the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project, which was sponsored by the Health Care Financing Administration. Using a Cox proportional-hazards model that accounted for multiple factors that might influence survival, we compared mortality among patients treated with beta-blockers with mortality among untreated patients during the two years after myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

A total of 34 percent of the patients received beta-blockers. The percentage was lower among the very elderly, blacks, and patients with the lowest ejection fractions, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, elevated serum creatinine concentrations, or type 1 diabetes mellitus. Nevertheless, mortality was lower in every subgroup of patients treated with beta-blockade than in untreated patients. In patients with myocardial infarction and no other complications, treatment with beta-blockers was associated with a 40 percent reduction in mortality. Mortality was also reduced by 40 percent in patients with non-Q-wave infarction and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Blacks, patients 80 years old or older, and those with a left ventricular ejection fraction below 20 percent, serum creatinine concentration greater than 1.4 mg per deciliter (124 micromol per liter), or diabetes mellitus had a lower percentage reduction in mortality. Given, however, the higher mortality rates in these subgroups, the absolute reduction in mortality was similar to or greater than that among patients with no specific risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

After myocardial infarction, patients with conditions that are often considered contraindications to beta-blockade (such as heart failure, pulmonary disease, and older age) and those with nontransmural infarction benefit from beta-blocker therapy.

Lisinopril. A review of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in elderly patients

Lisinopril, the lysine analogue of enalaprilat, is a long-acting angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor which is administered once daily by mouth. The efficacy of lisinopril in reducing blood pressure is well established in younger populations, and many trials now show it to be effective in lowering blood pressure in elderly patients with hypertension. In comparative and non-comparative clinical trials, 68.2 to 89.1% of elderly patients responded (diastolic pressure < or = 90 mm Hg) to > or = 8 weeks' lisinopril treatment. Age-related differences in antihypertensive efficacy do not appear to be clinically significant, and dosages effective in elderly patients tend to range from 2.5 to 40 mg/day. Dosages usually need to be lower in patients with significant renal impairment. In congestive heart failure, lisinopril 2.5 to 20 mg/day increases exercise duration, improves left ventricular ejection fraction and has no significant effect on ventricular ectopic beats. It is similar in efficacy to enalapril and digoxin and similar or superior to captopril on most end-points. Data from the GISSI-3 post-myocardial infarction trial show that lisinopril reduced mortality and left ventricular dysfunction when given for 42 days starting within 24 hours of the onset of infarction symptoms. Results at 6 weeks and 6 months were similar in elderly and younger patients. Elderly patients, however, among other subgroups, exhibited a strong reduction in risk of low ejection fraction after treatment (-25.5%). Economic studies suggest that lisinopril is cost saving compared with other ACE inhibitors in some markets. When given according to the GISSI-3 protocol, lisinopril appears to be one of the less expensive of the successful ACE inhibitor regimens for acute myocardial infarction. In other trials, patients with diabetic nephropathy and hypertension improved or did not deteriorate during lisinopril treatment. Blood pressure was controlled and reductions or trends towards reductions in albuminuria were observed. These reductions were similar to those in diltiazem, nifedipine and verapamil recipients, and greater than those in patients receiving atenolol. Lisinopril appears to reduce mortality in diabetic patients after myocardial infarction and may also improve neuropathy associated with diabetes. Lisinopril is well tolerated and the profile of adverse events seen is typical of ACE inhibitors as a class. There is a tendency for more elderly than younger patients to discontinue treatment, but this trend is not clearly related to the incidence of adverse events in these age groups. Drug interactions occur with few other agents and are usually clinically significant only between lisinopril and either diuretics or lithium. Lisinopril is, thus, an effective treatment for elderly patients with hypertension, congestive heart failure and acute myocardial infarction and has shown promising benefits in patients with diabetic nephropathy.

Lisinopril. A review of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in the early management of acute myocardial infarction

Following establishment of its efficacy in hypertension and congestive heart failure, the ACE inhibitor lisinopril has now been shown to reduce mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with myocardial infarction when administered as early treatment. The ability of lisinopril to attenuate the detrimental effects of left ventricular remodelling is a key mechanism; however, additional cardioprotective and vasculoprotective actions are postulated to play a role in mediating the early benefit. The GISSI-3 trial in > 19 000 patients has demonstrated that, when given orally within 24 hours of symptom onset and continued for 6 weeks, lisinopril (with or without nitrates) produces measurable survival benefits within 1 to 2 days of starting treatment. Compared with no lisinopril treatment, reductions of 11% in risk of mortality and 7.7% in a combined end-point (death plus severe left ventricular dysfunction) were evident at 6 weeks. Advantages were apparent in all types of patients. Thus, those at high risk-women, the elderly, patients with diabetes mellitus and those with anterior infarct and/or Killip class > 1 -also benefited. These gains in combined end-point events persisted in the longer term, despite treatment withdrawal after 6 weeks in most patients. At 6 months, the incidence rate for the combined end-point remained lower than with control (a 6.2% reduction). The GISSI-3 results concur with those from recent large investigations (ISIS-4, CCS-1, SMILE) of other ACE inhibitors as early management in myocardial infarction. However, the results of the CONSENSUS II trial (using intravenous enalaprilat then oral enalapril) were unfavourable in some patients. These findings, together with the development of persistent hypotension and, to a lesser extent, renal dysfunction among patients in the GISSI-3 trial, have prompted considerable debate over optimum treatment strategies. Present opinion generally holds that therapy with lisinopril or other ACE inhibitors shown to be beneficial may be started within 24 hours in haemodynamically stable patients with no other contraindications; current labelling in the US and other countries reflects this position. There is virtually unanimous agreement that such therapy is indicated in high-risk patients, particularly those with left ventricular dysfunction. The choice of ACE inhibitor appears less important than the decision to treat; it seems likely that these benefits are a class effect. Lisinopril has a tolerability profile resembling that of other ACE inhibitors, can be given once daily and may be less costly than other members of its class. However, present cost analyses are flawed and this latter points remains to be proven in formal cost-effectiveness analyses. In conclusion, early treatment with lisinopril (within 24 hours of symptom onset) for 6 weeks improves survival and reduces cardiovascular morbidity in patients with myocardial infarction, and confers ongoing benefit after drug withdrawal. While patients with symptoms of left ventricular dysfunction are prime candidates for treatment, all those who are haemodynamically stable with no other contraindications are also eligible to receive therapy. Lisinopril and other ACE inhibitors shown to be beneficial should therefore be considered an integral part of the early management of myocardial infarction in suitable patients.