DOI 10.1016/j.jjcc.2014.11.003
Guideline-adherence and perspectives in the acute management of unstable angina - Initial results from the German chest pain unit registry.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
We investigated the current management of unstable angina pectoris (UAP) in certified chest pain units (CPUs) in Germany and focused on the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline-adherence in the timing of invasive strategies or choice of conservative treatment options. More specifically, we analyzed differences in clinical outcome with respect to guideline-adherence.
METHOD: Prospective data from 1400 UAP patients were collected. Analyses of high-risk criteria with indication for invasive management and 3-month clinical outcome data were performed. Guideline-adherence was tested for a primarily conservative strategy as well as for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within <24 and <72h after admission.
RESULTS
Overall guideline-conforming management was performed in 38.2%. In UAP patients at risk, undertreatment caused by an insufficient consideration of risk criteria was obvious in 78%. Reciprocally, overtreatment in the absence of adequate risk markers was performed in 27%, whereas a guideline-conforming primarily conservative strategy was chosen in 73% of the low-risk patients. Together, the 3-month major adverse coronary and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were low (3.6%). Nonetheless, guideline-conforming treatment was even associated with significantly lower MACCE rates (1.6% vs. 4.0%, p<0.05).
CONCLUSION
The data suggest an inadequate adherence to ESC guidelines in nearly two thirds of the patients, particularly in those patients at high to intermediate risk with secondary risk factors, emphasizing the need for further attention to consistent risk profiling in the CPU and its certification process.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.