Guideline-indicated treatments and diagnostics, GRACE risk score, and survival for non-ST elevation myocardial infarction

Marlous Hall, Owen J. Bebb, Tatandashe B. Dondo, Andrew T. Yan, Shaun G. Goodman, Hector Bueno, Derek P. Chew, David Brieger, Philip D. Batin, Michel E. Farkouh, Harry Hemingway, Adam Timmis, Keith A.A. Fox, Chris P. Gale

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims To investigate whether improved survival from non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), according to GRACE risk score, was associated with guideline-indicated treatments and diagnostics, and persisted after hospital discharge. Methods and results National cohort study (n = 389 507 patients, n= 232 hospitals, MINAP registry), 2003-2013. The primary outcome was adjusted all-cause survival estimated using flexible parametric survival modelling with time-varying covariates. Optimal care was defined as the receipt of all eligible treatments and was inversely related to risk status (defined by the GRACE risk score): 25.6% in low, 18.6% in intermediate, and 11.5% in high-risk NSTEMI. At 30 days, the use of optimal care was associated with improved survival among high [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) -0.66 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.86, difference in absolute mortality rate (AMR) per 100 patients (AMR/100-0.19 95% CI -0.29 to -0.08)], and intermediate (aHR= 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.92; AMR/100= -0.15, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.08) risk NSTEMI. At the end of follow-up (8.4 years, median 2.3 years), the significant association between the use of all eligible guidelineindicated treatments and improved survival remained only for high-risk NSTEMI (aHR= 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.96; AMR/ 100= -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01). For low-risk NSTEMI, there was no association between the use of optimal care and improved survival at 30 days (aHR= 0.92, 95% CI 0.69-1.38) and at 8.4 years (aHR= 0.71, 95% CI 0.39-3.74). Conclusion Optimal use of guideline-indicated care for NSTEMI was associated with greater survival gains with increasing GRACE risk, but its use decreased with increasing GRACE risk.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3798-3806
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Heart Journal
Volume39
Issue number42
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Nov 2018

Keywords

  • GRACE risk score
  • Mortality
  • Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction
  • Quality of care

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Guideline-indicated treatments and diagnostics, GRACE risk score, and survival for non-ST elevation myocardial infarction'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Hall, M., Bebb, O. J., Dondo, T. B., Yan, A. T., Goodman, S. G., Bueno, H., Chew, D. P., Brieger, D., Batin, P. D., Farkouh, M. E., Hemingway, H., Timmis, A., Fox, K. A. A., & Gale, C. P. (2018). Guideline-indicated treatments and diagnostics, GRACE risk score, and survival for non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. European Heart Journal, 39(42), 3798-3806. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy517