Clinical practice guidelines in unstable angina improve clinical outcomes by assuring early intensive medical treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the influence of clinical practice guidelines on treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in unstable angina and the effectiveness of guideline reminders on implementing practice guidelines, two groups of medium and high risk patients with unstable angina were compared. BACKGROUND: New guidelines have been published by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) for evaluating and managing patients with unstable angina. The impact of these guidelines to improve the quality of care has never been tested. METHODS: Group 1 included 338 consecutive medium or high risk patients admitted before publication of the AHCPR guidelines, and group 2 consisted of 181 consecutive similar risk patients admitted after institution of the AHCPR guideline reminders at this institution. Dissemination of clinical practice guidelines was ensured by a grand rounds lecture and by posting guideline reminders on all group 2 patients' charts within 24 h of admission. RESULTS: The two groups were similar in terms of most baseline characteristics, including hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking history, baseline ST segment depression and previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Group 1 patients were older (68+/-13 vs. 63+/-16 years, p = 0.001) and more frequently had a previous myocardial infarction (39% vs. 22%, p = 0.001). Group 2 patients more frequently required intravenous nitroglycerin to control the index episode of chest pain (43% vs. 34%, p = 0.003). Group 2 patients more frequently received aspirin (96% vs. 88%, p = 0.009) during admission and underwent coronary angiography (71% vs. 58%, p = 0.006). More importantly, group 2 patients received oral beta-blockers (p = 0.008), aspirin and coronary angiography (p = 0.001) earlier than group 1 patients and experienced recurrent angina (29% vs. 54%) and myocardial infarction or death less frequently (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: In unstable angina, clinical practice guidelines were associated with greater use of aspirin and coronary angiography and greater use and earlier administration of beta-blockers. Variation in drug use over time was also reduced. Objective improvement in clinical outcome was also noted. Thus, practice guidelines improve the quality of care of patients with unstable angina.

Simultaneous intracoronary ultrasound and Doppler flow studies distinguish flow-mediated from receptor-mediated endothelial responses.

Abnormalities in vascular endothelial function, which occur early in atherosclerosis, may play an etiologic role in the development of the disease or represent a marker for the extent of atherosclerosis. Endothelial dysfunction, usually characterized by demonstration of decreased endothelium-dependent vasorelaxation, may be a sensitive and specific method to detect vascular disease in its earliest stages. In this context, separation of abnormalities in receptor-mediated and flow-mediated endothelium-dependent vasodilatory responses may allow for the most accurate characterization of endothelial dysfunction. In 35 patients undergoing routine annual cardiac catheterization after heart transplantation, changes in epicardial lumen area and coronary blood flow in response to intracoronary administration of adenosine, acetylcholine, and nitroglycerin were measured simultaneously using an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) catheter positioned over a Doppler flow wire in the left anterior descending coronary artery. The combination of these techniques allowed for distinction between receptor-mediated and flow-mediated endothelium-dependent vascular responses. Peak flow with the endothelium-independent resistance vessel dilator adenosine occurred at 18+/-2 sec; the maximal lumen area response occurred later, at 43+/-11 sec (P < 0.001). Acetylcholine, an endothelium-dependent small- and large-vessel vasodilator, caused an immediate increase in both flow and lumen area, but a second peak of dilation was observed, and maximal area occurred 46 sec after maximal flow (54+/-14 vs. 100+/-26 sec, P < 0.001). Simultaneous IVUS and Doppler flow measurements after infusion of vasoactive agents allows for distinction between and evaluation of the relative contribution of agonist-mediated and flow-mediated responses, which may offer important and unique insights into coronary endothelial function.

The use of APACHE II scores to select candidates for left ventricular assist device placement. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The growth in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) use has been hampered by high morbidity and mortality rates and cost. The purpose of this study was to help improve patient selection for LVAD placement by determining whether the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scoring system, a multiparameter, physiology-based predictor of outcome, could be used to predict outcome after LVAD placement and thus help determine optimum timing of LVAD placement. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort observational study consisting of 2 groups: (1) 50 patients with severe heart failure who did not receive LVAD placement after initial evaluation and (2) 31 patients who did receive LVAD placement. Patients included in the study were in severe heart failure on the basis of 3 of the following: lung crackles, S3, peripheral edema, ejection fraction < 0.30, systolic blood pressure < 80 mm Hg, progressive prerenal azotemia, altered level of consciousness, gastrointestinal ischemia or congestion, or persistent although reversible pulmonary hypertension in spite of maximal medical therapy, including intravenous inotropes. The decision for LVAD placement was at the discretion of the attending physician. RESULTS: Both LVAD- and non-LVAD-treated patients were similar in cause of heart failure, APACHE II scores, and other baseline laboratory parameters. Survival time with a log-logistic model was better for LVAD-treated patients, p=.0266. Although Kaplan Meier analysis showed a trend toward better survival rates in the LVAD-treated patient, the Cox proportional hazards revealed that LVAD-treated patients had better survival (relative risk ratio, 95% confidence interval=0.305, 0.110 to 0.892; p=.0219) after adjustment for APACHE II score. Each unit increase in APACHE II independently predicted death (relative risk ratios, 95% confidence interval=1.139, 1.055 to 1.231; p=.0009). Patients with medium APACHE II (11 to 20) scores in particular benefitted from LVAD treatment. CONCLUSION: LVAD placement for severe heart failure (not restricted to cardiogenic shock) improves survival. APACHE II can aid in deciding the timing of LVAD placement in patients with heart failure who may not have attained conventional hemodynamic criteria for LVAD placement. Patients who had APACHE II scores between 11 and 20 derived the greatest benefit from LVAD placement.