Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Am J Cardiol ; 108(5): 617-24, 2011 Sep 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21714948

RESUMO

It is unclear if clinician risk stratification has changed with time. The aim of this study was to assess the temporal change in the concordance between patient presenting risk and the intensity of evidence-based therapies received for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes over a 9-year period. Data from 3,562 patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes enrolled in the Australian and New Zealand population of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) from 1999 to 2007 were analyzed. Patients were stratified to risk groups on the basis of the GRACE risk score for in-hospital mortality. Main outcome measures included in-hospital use of widely accepted evidence-based medications, investigations, and procedures. Invasive management was consistently higher in low-risk patients than in intermediate- or high-risk patients (coronary angiography 66.7% vs 63.5% vs 35.3%, p <0.001; percutaneous coronary intervention 31.1% vs 22.0% vs 12.9%, p <0.001). Absolute rates of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in the high-risk group remained 24% and 15% lower compared to the low-risk group in the most recent time period (2005 to 2007). In-hospital use of thienopyridine, low-molecular weight heparin, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors showed a similar inverse relation with risk. Prescription of aspirin, ß blockers, statins, and angiotensin receptor blockers was inversely related to risk before 2004, although this inverse relation was no longer present in the most recent time period (2005 to 2007). Only in-hospital use of unfractionated heparin showed use concordant with patient risk status. In conclusion, despite an overall increase in the uptake of evidence-based therapies, most investigations and treatments are not targeted on the basis of patient risk. Clinician risk stratification remains suboptimal compared to objective measures of patient risk.


Assuntos
Síndrome Coronariana Aguda/mortalidade , Síndrome Coronariana Aguda/terapia , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Medição de Risco , Síndrome Coronariana Aguda/diagnóstico por imagem , Antagonistas Adrenérgicos beta/uso terapêutico , Idoso , Angioplastia Coronária com Balão , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/uso terapêutico , Anticoagulantes/uso terapêutico , Aspirina/uso terapêutico , Austrália/epidemiologia , Distribuição de Qui-Quadrado , Angiografia Coronária , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Feminino , Heparina/uso terapêutico , Heparina de Baixo Peso Molecular/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Inibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Redutases/uso terapêutico , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Nova Zelândia/epidemiologia , Complexo Glicoproteico GPIIb-IIIa de Plaquetas/antagonistas & inibidores , Sistema de Registros , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Análise de Sobrevida , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
Am. j. cardiol ; 108(5): 617-624, 2011. ilus, tab
Artigo em Inglês | Sec. Est. Saúde SP, SESSP-IDPCPROD, Sec. Est. Saúde SP | ID: biblio-1059479

RESUMO

It is unclear if clinician risk stratification has changed with time. The aim of this study was to assess the temporal change in the concordance between patient presenting risk and the intensity of evidence-based therapies received for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes over a 9-year period. Data from 3,562 patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes enrolled in the Australian and New Zealand population of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) from 1999 to 2007 were analyzed. Patients were stratified to risk groups on the basis of the GRACE risk score for in-hospital mortality. Main outcome measures included in-hospital use of widely accepted evidence-based medications, investigations, and procedures. Invasive management was consistently higher in low-risk patients than in intermediate- or high-risk patients (coronary angiography 66.7% vs 63.5% vs 35.3%, p <0.001; percutaneous coronary intervention 31.1% vs 22.0% vs 12.9%, p <0.001). Absolute rates of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in the high-risk group remained 24% and 15% lower compared to the low-risk group in the most recent time period (2005 to 2007). In-hospital use of thienopyridine, low-molecular weight heparin, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors showed a similar inverse relation with risk. Prescription of aspirin, â blockers, statins, and angiotensin receptor blockers was inversely related to risk before 2004, although this inverse relation was no longer present in the most recent time period (2005 to 2007). Only in-hospital use of unfractionated heparin showed use concordant with patient risk status. In conclusion, despite an overall increase in the uptake of evidence-based therapies, most investigations and treatments are not targeted on the basis of patient risk. Clinician risk stratification remains suboptimal compared to objective measures of patient risk.


Assuntos
Angiografia Coronária , Coração , Doença das Coronárias , Síndrome
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...