Evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes and its relationship to treatment
Goodman, Shaun G.
Yan, Raymond T.
Grondin, Francois R.
Welsh, Robert C.
Yan, Andrew T.
Canadian Acute Coronary Syndrome I and II Registries Investigators
Canadian Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE/GRACE2) Investigators
Canadian Registry of Acute Coronary Events (CANRACE) Investigators
UMass Chan AffiliationsCenter for Outcomes Research
KeywordsAcute Coronary Syndrome; Aged; Electrocardiography; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; *Stroke Volume
Health Services Research
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractBACKGROUND: In-hospital assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is emphasized in current practice guidelines. There are limited data regarding the evaluation of LVEF and clinical characteristics and in-hospital management in the "real world." METHODS: Registries including the Canadian Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) I and II, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (main GRACE/expanded GRACE(2)), and Canadian Registry of Acute Coronary Events (CANRACE) enrolled 13,703 NSTE-ACS patients across Canada between 1999 and 2008. Patients were stratified by in-hospital LVEF measurement, and LVEF was categorized as normal, mildly, or moderately to severely impaired. We compared clinical characteristics, cardiac procedures, and clinical outcomes across these groups. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors independently associated with the assessment of LVEF. RESULTS: Overall, 8,116 patients (59.2%) had LVEF measurement, and of the 7,667 patients with available LVEF data, 4,470 (58.3%) had normal, 1,916 (25%) mildly impaired, and 1,281 (16.7%) moderately to severely impaired LVEF. Patients with LVEF assessment more frequently (all P < .001) underwent cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary bypass surgery, and had higher (both P < .001) rates of myocardial (re) infarction and heart failure. In-hospital reinfarction, higher Killip class, abnormal biomarker, hospital stay >10 days, and on-site cardiac catheterization facility were independently associated with LVEF assessment. Despite increasing LVEF assessment over time (P for trend < .001), 31.2% of patients in the most recent registry (2008) had no in-hospital LVEF assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital LVEF assessment is not performed in many NSTE-ACS patients. The LVEF assessment, associated with increased use of evidence-based therapies and invasive cardiac procedures, was obtained more frequently in patients with myocardial (re) infarction, heart failure on presentation, and prolonged hospital stay.
SourceAm Heart J. 2010 Apr;159(4):605-11. Link to article on publisher's site
Permanent Link to this Itemhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/27292
Related ResourcesLink to Article in PubMed
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Management patterns of non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes in relation to prior coronary revascularizationElbarasi, Esam; Goodman, Shaun G.; Yan, Raymond T.; Welsh, Robert C.; Kornder, Jan; Wong, Graham C.; Dery, Jean-Pierre; Anderson, Frederick A. Jr.; Gore, Joel M.; Fox, Keith A. A.; et al. (2010-01-28)BACKGROUND: Contemporary guidelines support an early invasive strategy for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients who had prior coronary revascularization. However, little is known about the management pattern of these patients in "real world." METHODS: We analyzed 3 consecutive Canadian registries (ACS I, ACS II, and Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events [GRACE]/expanded-GRACE) that recruited 12,483 NSTE-ACS patients from June 1999 to December 2007. We stratified the study population according to prior coronary revascularization status into 4 groups and compared their clinical characteristics, in-hospital use of medications, and cardiac procedures. RESULTS: Of the 12,483 NSTE-ACS patients, 71.2% had no prior revascularization, 14.2% had percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) only, 9.5% had coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) only, and 5% had both PCI and CABG. Compared to their counterparts without prior revascularization, patients with previous PCI and/or CABG were more likely to be male, to have diabetes, myocardial infarction, and heart failure but less likely to have ST-segment deviation or positive cardiac biomarker on presentation. Early use of evidence-based medications was higher among patients with previous PCI only and lower among patients with previous CABG only. After adjusting for possible confounders including GRACE risk score, prior PCI was independently associated with in-hospital use of cardiac catheterization (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% CI 1.04-1.34, P = .008). In contrast, previous CABG was an independent negative predictor (adjusted OR .77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87, P < .001). There was no significant interaction (P = .93) between previous PCI and CABG. CONCLUSIONS: The NSTE-ACS patients with previous PCI were more likely to be treated invasively. Conversely, patients with prior CABG less frequently received invasive therapy. Future studies should determine the appropriateness of this treatment discrepancy.
Intervention in acute coronary syndromes: do patients undergo intervention on the basis of their risk characteristics? The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE)Fox, Keith A. A.; Anderson, Frederick A. Jr.; Dabbous, Omar H.; Steg, Phillippe Gabriel; Lopez-Sendon, Jose; Van de Werf, Frans; Budaj, Andrzej; Gurfinkel, Enrique P.; Goodman, Shaun G.; Brieger, David (2007-02-08)OBJECTIVE: To determine whether revascularisation is more likely to be performed in higher-risk patients and whether the findings are influenced by hospitals adopting more or less aggressive revascularisation strategies. METHODS: GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) is a multinational, observational cohort study. This study involved 24,189 patients enrolled at 73 hospitals with on-site angiographic facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 32.5% of patients with a non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; 53.7% in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)) and 7.2% underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG; 4.0% in STEMI). The cumulative rate of in-hospital death rose correspondingly with the GRACE risk score (variables: age, Killip class, systolic blood pressure, ST segment deviation, cardiac arrest at admission, serum creatinine, raised cardiac markers, heart rate), from 1.2% in low-risk to 3.3% in medium-risk and 13.0% in high-risk patients (c statistic = 0.83). PCI procedures were more likely to be performed in low- (40% non-STEMI, 60% STEMI) than medium- (35%, 54%) or high-risk patients (25%, 41%). No such gradient was apparent for patients undergoing CABG. These findings were seen in STEMI and non-ST elevation ACS, in all geographical regions and irrespective of whether hospitals adopted low (4.2-33.7%, n = 7210 observations), medium (35.7-51.4%, n = 7913 observations) or high rates (52.6-77.0%, n = 8942 observations) of intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A risk-averse strategy to angiography appears to be widely adopted. Proceeding to PCI relates to referral practice and angiographic findings rather than the patient's risk status. Systematic and accurate risk stratification may allow higher-risk patients to be selected for revascularisation procedures, in contrast to current international practice.
Unprotected left main revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromesMontalescot, Gilles; Brieger, David; Eagle, Kim A.; Anderson, Frederick A. Jr.; Fitzgerald, Gordon; Lee, Michael S.; Steg, Phillippe Gabriel; Avezum, Alvaro; Goodman, Shaun G.; Gore, Joel M. (2009-09-02)AIMS: In acute coronary syndromes (ACS), the optimal revascularization strategy for unprotected left main coronary disease (ULMCD) has been little studied. The objectives of the present study were to describe the practice of ULMCD revascularization in ACS patients and its evolution over an 8-year period, analyse the prognosis of this population and determine the effect of revascularization on outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 43 018 patients enrolled in the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) between 2000 and 2007, 1799 had significant ULMCD and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) alone (n = 514), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) alone (n = 612), or no revascularization (n = 673). Mortality was 7.7% in hospital and 14% at 6 months. Over the 8-year study, the GRACE risk score remained constant, but there was a steady shift to more PCI than CABG over time. Patients undergoing PCI presented more frequently with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), after cardiac arrest, or in cardiogenic shock; 48% of PCI patients underwent revascularization on the day of admission vs. 5.1% in the CABG group. After adjustment, revascularization was associated with an early hazard of hospital death vs. no revascularization, significant for PCI (hazard ratio (HR) 2.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.62-4.18) but not for CABG (1.26, 0.72-2.22). From discharge to 6 months, both PCI (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.85) and CABG (0.11, 0.04-0.28) were significantly associated with improved survival in comparison with an initial strategy of no revascularization. Coronary artery bypass graft revascularization was associated with a five-fold increase in stroke compared with the other two groups. CONCLUSION: Unprotected left main coronary disease in ACS is associated with high mortality, especially in patients with STEMI and/or haemodynamic or arrhythmic instability. Percutaneous coronary intervention is now the most common revascularization strategy and preferred in higher risk patients. Coronary artery bypass graft is often delayed and performed in lower risk patients, leading to good 6-month survival. The two approaches therefore appear complementary.