BMC health services research · 2021
Dropping risk stratification with subsequent treatment-risk paradox in non ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: a clinical audit in Iraq.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dakhil Zainab Atiyah, Farhan Hasan Ali
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Risk stratification is the cornerstone in managing patients with Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and can attenuate the unjustified variability in treatment and guide the intervention decision notwithstanding its impact on better healthcare resources use. This study sought to disclose real adherence to guidelines in risk stratification of NSTE-ACS patients and in adopting intervention decision in practice.
METHODS: Multicentre prospective study recruited NSTE-ACS patients. Baseline characteristics were collected, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) scores were calculated, management strategy as well as timing to intervention were recorded.
RESULTS: n. = 150, 72% of them were males, mean age was (59 ± 12.32) years. TIMI score was calculated in 5.3% of patients with none of them had GRACE score calculated. Invasive strategy was adopted in 85.24 and 82.7% of low GRACE and TIMI risk categories respectively, while invasive approach used in 42.85 and 40% of high GRACE and TIMI risk categories respectively. The immediate intervention in less than 2 hours was more to be used in low-risk categories while the high-risk and very high-risk patients whom were managed invasively were catheterized within >72 h; or more frequently to be non-catheterized at all. Sixty percent of those with acute heart failure, 80.76% of those with ongoing chest pain, 85% of those with dynamic ST changes same as 80% of those with cardiogenic shock were treated conservatively. Using multivariable analysis older age, ongoing chest pain and cardiogenic shock predicted conservative approach.
CONCLUSIONS: There is striking underuse of risk scores in practice that can contribute to treatment-risk paradox in managing NSTE-ACS in form of depriving those with higher risk from invasive strategy despite being the most beneficiaries. The paradox did not only involve the very high-risk patients but also the very high-risk criteria like ongoing chest pain and cardiogenic shock predicted conservative approach, this highlights that the entire approach to patients with NSTE-ACS should be reconsidered, regardless of the use of risk scores in clinical practice. Audit programs activation in middle eastern countries can inform policymakers to put a limit to the treatment-risk paradox for better cardiovascular care and outcomes.
METHODS: Multicentre prospective study recruited NSTE-ACS patients. Baseline characteristics were collected, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) scores were calculated, management strategy as well as timing to intervention were recorded.
RESULTS: n. = 150, 72% of them were males, mean age was (59 ± 12.32) years. TIMI score was calculated in 5.3% of patients with none of them had GRACE score calculated. Invasive strategy was adopted in 85.24 and 82.7% of low GRACE and TIMI risk categories respectively, while invasive approach used in 42.85 and 40% of high GRACE and TIMI risk categories respectively. The immediate intervention in less than 2 hours was more to be used in low-risk categories while the high-risk and very high-risk patients whom were managed invasively were catheterized within >72 h; or more frequently to be non-catheterized at all. Sixty percent of those with acute heart failure, 80.76% of those with ongoing chest pain, 85% of those with dynamic ST changes same as 80% of those with cardiogenic shock were treated conservatively. Using multivariable analysis older age, ongoing chest pain and cardiogenic shock predicted conservative approach.
CONCLUSIONS: There is striking underuse of risk scores in practice that can contribute to treatment-risk paradox in managing NSTE-ACS in form of depriving those with higher risk from invasive strategy despite being the most beneficiaries. The paradox did not only involve the very high-risk patients but also the very high-risk criteria like ongoing chest pain and cardiogenic shock predicted conservative approach, this highlights that the entire approach to patients with NSTE-ACS should be reconsidered, regardless of the use of risk scores in clinical practice. Audit programs activation in middle eastern countries can inform policymakers to put a limit to the treatment-risk paradox for better cardiovascular care and outcomes.