Cargando…
Dropping risk stratification with subsequent treatment-risk paradox in non ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: a clinical audit in Iraq
BACKGROUND: Risk stratification is the cornerstone in managing patients with Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and can attenuate the unjustified variability in treatment and guide the intervention decision notwithstanding its impact on better healthcare resources use. This study s...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8474949/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34565377 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07034-7 |
_version_ | 1784575337247539200 |
---|---|
author | Dakhil, Zainab Atiyah Farhan, Hasan Ali |
author_facet | Dakhil, Zainab Atiyah Farhan, Hasan Ali |
author_sort | Dakhil, Zainab Atiyah |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Risk stratification is the cornerstone in managing patients with Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and can attenuate the unjustified variability in treatment and guide the intervention decision notwithstanding its impact on better healthcare resources use. This study sought to disclose real adherence to guidelines in risk stratification of NSTE-ACS patients and in adopting intervention decision in practice. METHODS: Multicentre prospective study recruited NSTE-ACS patients. Baseline characteristics were collected, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) scores were calculated, management strategy as well as timing to intervention were recorded. RESULTS: n. = 150, 72% of them were males, mean age was (59 ± 12.32) years. TIMI score was calculated in 5.3% of patients with none of them had GRACE score calculated. Invasive strategy was adopted in 85.24 and 82.7% of low GRACE and TIMI risk categories respectively, while invasive approach used in 42.85 and 40% of high GRACE and TIMI risk categories respectively. The immediate intervention in less than 2 hours was more to be used in low-risk categories while the high-risk and very high-risk patients whom were managed invasively were catheterized within >72 h; or more frequently to be non-catheterized at all. Sixty percent of those with acute heart failure, 80.76% of those with ongoing chest pain, 85% of those with dynamic ST changes same as 80% of those with cardiogenic shock were treated conservatively. Using multivariable analysis older age, ongoing chest pain and cardiogenic shock predicted conservative approach. CONCLUSIONS: There is striking underuse of risk scores in practice that can contribute to treatment-risk paradox in managing NSTE-ACS in form of depriving those with higher risk from invasive strategy despite being the most beneficiaries. The paradox did not only involve the very high-risk patients but also the very high-risk criteria like ongoing chest pain and cardiogenic shock predicted conservative approach, this highlights that the entire approach to patients with NSTE-ACS should be reconsidered, regardless of the use of risk scores in clinical practice. Audit programs activation in middle eastern countries can inform policymakers to put a limit to the treatment-risk paradox for better cardiovascular care and outcomes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8474949 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84749492021-09-28 Dropping risk stratification with subsequent treatment-risk paradox in non ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: a clinical audit in Iraq Dakhil, Zainab Atiyah Farhan, Hasan Ali BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Risk stratification is the cornerstone in managing patients with Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and can attenuate the unjustified variability in treatment and guide the intervention decision notwithstanding its impact on better healthcare resources use. This study sought to disclose real adherence to guidelines in risk stratification of NSTE-ACS patients and in adopting intervention decision in practice. METHODS: Multicentre prospective study recruited NSTE-ACS patients. Baseline characteristics were collected, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) scores were calculated, management strategy as well as timing to intervention were recorded. RESULTS: n. = 150, 72% of them were males, mean age was (59 ± 12.32) years. TIMI score was calculated in 5.3% of patients with none of them had GRACE score calculated. Invasive strategy was adopted in 85.24 and 82.7% of low GRACE and TIMI risk categories respectively, while invasive approach used in 42.85 and 40% of high GRACE and TIMI risk categories respectively. The immediate intervention in less than 2 hours was more to be used in low-risk categories while the high-risk and very high-risk patients whom were managed invasively were catheterized within >72 h; or more frequently to be non-catheterized at all. Sixty percent of those with acute heart failure, 80.76% of those with ongoing chest pain, 85% of those with dynamic ST changes same as 80% of those with cardiogenic shock were treated conservatively. Using multivariable analysis older age, ongoing chest pain and cardiogenic shock predicted conservative approach. CONCLUSIONS: There is striking underuse of risk scores in practice that can contribute to treatment-risk paradox in managing NSTE-ACS in form of depriving those with higher risk from invasive strategy despite being the most beneficiaries. The paradox did not only involve the very high-risk patients but also the very high-risk criteria like ongoing chest pain and cardiogenic shock predicted conservative approach, this highlights that the entire approach to patients with NSTE-ACS should be reconsidered, regardless of the use of risk scores in clinical practice. Audit programs activation in middle eastern countries can inform policymakers to put a limit to the treatment-risk paradox for better cardiovascular care and outcomes. BioMed Central 2021-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8474949/ /pubmed/34565377 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07034-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Dakhil, Zainab Atiyah Farhan, Hasan Ali Dropping risk stratification with subsequent treatment-risk paradox in non ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: a clinical audit in Iraq |
title | Dropping risk stratification with subsequent treatment-risk paradox in non ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: a clinical audit in Iraq |
title_full | Dropping risk stratification with subsequent treatment-risk paradox in non ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: a clinical audit in Iraq |
title_fullStr | Dropping risk stratification with subsequent treatment-risk paradox in non ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: a clinical audit in Iraq |
title_full_unstemmed | Dropping risk stratification with subsequent treatment-risk paradox in non ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: a clinical audit in Iraq |
title_short | Dropping risk stratification with subsequent treatment-risk paradox in non ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: a clinical audit in Iraq |
title_sort | dropping risk stratification with subsequent treatment-risk paradox in non st elevation acute coronary syndromes: a clinical audit in iraq |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8474949/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34565377 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07034-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dakhilzainabatiyah droppingriskstratificationwithsubsequenttreatmentriskparadoxinnonstelevationacutecoronarysyndromesaclinicalauditiniraq AT farhanhasanali droppingriskstratificationwithsubsequenttreatmentriskparadoxinnonstelevationacutecoronarysyndromesaclinicalauditiniraq |