Impact of age and gender on in-hospital and late mortality after acute myocardial infarction: increased early risk in younger women: results from the French nation-wide USIC registries.

AIMS: To determine whether sex differences of in-hospital and after-discharge mortality differ according to the age. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data of 4347 consecutive patients hospitalized within 48 h of the onset of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were analysed. Patients were classified according to median age (68 years): Group 1 (G1) (308 women, 30-67 years), G2 (1878 men, 30-67 years), G3 (860 women, 68-89 years), and G4 (1301 men, 68-89 years). In both age groups, women were older, had more frequent co-morbidities, lower rate of reperfusion therapy, and received less anti-platelet agents, beta-blockers, and statins than men. The overall 1-year mortality was higher in women (25% vs. 16% in men, P<0.0001). After adjustment, in-hospital mortality was higher only for the women in the younger age group. (G1 vs. G2: OR=2.2, 95%CI=1.3-3.8; G3 vs. G4: OR=1.1, 95%CI=the risk of death, after hospital discharge, was no longer related to gender in any age group. CONCLUSION: The higher 1-year mortality following AMI in women is explained by the higher risk of death in young women during the first days of hospitalization. Further investigations are crucial to determine the cause in order to improve the chance of survival in younger women.

Impact of combined secondary prevention therapy after myocardial infarction: data from a nationwide French registry.

BACKGROUND: Several classes of medications improve survival in patients with coronary artery disease. Whether these medications, as used in the real world, have additive efficacy remains speculative. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether patients discharged on combined secondary prevention medications after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have improved 1-year survival, compared with the action of any single class of medications. DESIGN AND SETTING: Nationwide registry of consecutive patients admitted to intensive care units for AMI in November 2000 in France. Multivariate Cox regression analysis, including a propensity score for the prescription of combined therapy, was used. RESULTS: Of the 2119 patients discharged alive, 1095 (52%) were prescribed a combination of antiplatelet agents, beta-blockers, and statins (triple therapy), of whom 567 (27%) also received angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (quadruple therapy) and 528 (25%) did not. One-year survival was 97% in patients receiving triple combination therapy versus 88% in those who received either none, 1, or 2 of these medications (P < .0001). After multivariate adjustment including the propensity score, the hazard ratio for 1-year mortality in patients with triple combination therapy was 0.52 (95% CI 0.33-0.81). In patients with ejection fraction < or = 35%, beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were independent predictors of survival, and combination therapy had no additional prognostic value. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the prescription of any single class of secondary prevention medications, combination therapy offers additional protection in patients with AMI.

Effect of early initiation of statins on survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction (the USIC 2000 Registry).

We evaluated the association of statin initiation within 48 hours of admission for an acute myocardial infarction with a 1-year prognosis on a nationwide scale. Patients who received a statin within 48 hours of admission but not before hospitalization had an improved prognosis (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 0.86, p <0.007) after adjustment for covariates and propensity score.

Role of previous treatment with sulfonylureas in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from a nationwide French registry.

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of sulfonylureas (SU) in diabetic patients are controversial and it has been suggested that diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction while on SU were at increased risk. OBJECTIVES: To assess the in-hospital outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction according to the use of SU at the time of the acute episode. METHODS: Of 443 intensive care units in France, 369 (83%) prospectively collected all cases of infarction admitted within 48 h of symptom onset in November 2000. RESULTS: Among the 2320 patients included in the registry, 487 (21%) had diabetes, of whom 215 (44%) were on SU. Patients on SU were older and had a more frequent history of hyperlipidemia than those not receiving SU. Type and location of infarction were similar in the two groups, and there was no difference in Killip class on admission. In-hospital mortality was lower in patients on SU (10.2%) than in those without SU (16.9%) (p = 0.035). There was a trend toward less frequent ventricular fibrillation (2.3% vs 5.9%, p = 0.052). In two models of multivariate analyses, SU therapy was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality (model 1: relative risk: 0.44, p = 0.012; model 2: relative risk: 0.37, p = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide registry reflecting real-world practice, the use of sulfonylureas in diabetic patients was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality.

[Combination therapy at hospital discharge in the USIC 2000 survey]. / Les associations thérapeutiques a la sortie de l'hôpital dans l'enquête USIC 2000 : corrélations avec la survie a un an.

UNLABELLED: We tried to determine the prognostic impact of triple (antiplatelet agents, statins and beta-blockers) and quadruple (the same+ACE inhibitors) combination therapy at hospital discharge after acute myocardial infarction. The USIC 2000 survey is nationwide registry of consecutive patients admitted to intensive care units for acute myocardial infarction in November 2000 in France. Of the 2119 patients discharged alive, 1095 (52%) were prescribed a combination of antiplatelet agents, beta-blockers and statins (triple therapy), including 567 (27%) with a similar combination plus ACE inhibitors (quadruple therapy). One-year survival was 97% in patients receiving triple combination therapy versus 88% in those who received either no, one or two of these medications (p < 0.0001). After multivariate adjustment, the odds ratio for one-year mortality in patients with triple combination therapy was 0.49 (95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.75). Quadruple combination therapy had no additional predictive value in the entire population. In patients with ejection fraction < or = 35%, however, beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors were independent predictors of survival, and combination therapy had no additional prognostic value. CONCLUSIONS: compared with the prescription of any single class of secondary prevention medications, combination therapy offers additional protection in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Impact of prehospital thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction on 1-year outcome: results from the French Nationwide USIC 2000 Registry.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the impact of prehospital thrombolysis (PHT) in the "real-world" setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 443 intensive care units in France, 369 (83%) prospectively collected all cases of infarction (< or =48 hours of symptom onset) in November 2000; 1922 patients (median age, 67 years; 73% men) with ST-segment-elevation infarction were included, of whom 180 (9%) received intravenous thrombolysis before hospital admission (PHT). Patients with PHT were younger than those with in-hospital thrombolysis, primary percutaneous interventions, or no reperfusion therapy. Median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 3.6 hours for PHT, 3.5 hours for in-hospital lysis, 3.2 hours for primary percutaneous interventions, and 12 hours for no reperfusion therapy. In-hospital death was 3.3% for PHT, 8.0% for in-hospital lysis, 6.7% for primary percutaneous interventions, and 12.2% for no reperfusion therapy. One-year survival was 94%, 89%, 89%, and 79%, respectively. In a multivariate analysis of predictors of 1-year survival, PHT was associated with a 0.49 relative risk of death (95% CI, 0.24 to 1.00; P=0.05). When the analysis was limited to patients receiving reperfusion therapy, the relative risk of death for PHT was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.25 to 1.08; P=0.08). In patients with PHT admitted in < or =3.5 hours, in-hospital mortality was 0% and 1-year survival was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: The 1-year outcome of patients treated with PHT compares favorably with that of patients treated with other modes of reperfusion therapy; this favorable trend persists after multivariate adjustment. Patients with PHT admitted very early have a very high 1-year survival rate.

Role of heparin in the antithrombotic treatment of valvulopathies.

Heparin is indicated to replace warfarin in patients with valve disease requiring antithrombotic treatment. Its use in thus necessary for short periods during which warfarin is contraindicated, but the thromboembolic risk persists. These circumstances, which are common in patients with mechanical prostheses, include: hemorrhagic risk or event complicating an existing thromboembolic risk (heart or extracardiac surgery, severe hemorrhage, end of pregnancy); when an unstable situation develops and imposes the rapid diminution or interruption of anticoagulants (stroke, infectious endocarditis); when immediate efficacy is required, rather than the delayed action of warfarin (onset of atrial fibrillation); and when warfarin is contraindicated (early pregnancy). Regardless of whether unfractionated or low molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is used, therapeutic doses must be prescribed: continuously perfused intravenous and subcutaneous injections (t.i.d.) with repeated biological monitoring for the former, or subcutaneous injections (b.i.d.) with initial biological controls preferred and repeated in elderly subjects or those suffering from renal insufficiency. International guidelines have specified the respective roles of heparin in general, and each preparation individually with an ever-increasing use of LMWH, the efficacy of which has been proven in the majority of common thromboembolic pathologies and in pregnant women.