Yan Andrew T, Yan Raymond T, Tan Mary, Fung Anthony, Cohen Eric A, Fitchett David H, Langer Anatoly, Goodman Shaun G
Division of Cardiology, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 1W8.
Arch Intern Med. 2007 May 28;167(10):1009-16. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.10.1009.
Randomized clinical trials have established the efficacy of an early invasive management strategy for high-risk non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). We examined the use of in-hospital cardiac catheterization and medications in relation to risk across the broad spectrum of non-ST elevation ACSs.
We evaluated 4414 patients with non-ST elevation ACSs in the prospective, multicenter, Canadian ACS 1 (September 1, 1999-June 30, 2001) and ACS 2 (October 1, 2002-December 31, 2003) Registries. Patients were stratified into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups based on tertiles of the calculated Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk score (a validated predictor of in-hospital mortality).
Although in-hospital mortality rates were similar, the in-hospital use of cardiac catheterization increased significantly over time (38.8% in the ACS 1 Registry vs 63.5% in the ACS 2 Registry; P<.001). The rates of cardiac catheterization in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 48.0%, 41.1%, and 27.3% in the ACS 1 Registry, and 73.8%, 66.9%, and 49.7% in the ACS 2 Registry, respectively (P<.001 for trend for both). After adjusting for other confounders, intermediate-risk (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.90; P<.001) and high-risk (adjusted odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.45; P<.001) patients remained less likely to undergo cardiac catheterization compared with low-risk patients. Furthermore, there existed a similar inverse relationship between risk and the use of in-hospital revascularization and medications.
Despite temporal increases in the use of cardiac catheterization and revascularization in the management of non-ST elevation ACSs, evidence-based invasive and pharmacological therapies remain paradoxically targeted toward low-risk patients. Strategies to eliminate this treatment-risk paradox must be implemented to fully realize the benefits and optimize the cost-effectiveness of invasive management.
随机临床试验已证实早期侵入性治疗策略对高危非ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)的疗效。我们研究了在广泛的非ST段抬高型ACS患者中,住院期间心脏导管插入术和药物治疗的使用与风险之间的关系。
我们在加拿大ACS 1(1999年9月1日至2001年6月30日)和ACS 2(2002年10月1日至2003年12月31日)前瞻性多中心注册研究中评估了4414例非ST段抬高型ACS患者。根据计算的全球急性冠状动脉事件注册风险评分(一种经过验证的住院死亡率预测指标)的三分位数,将患者分为低、中、高风险组。
尽管住院死亡率相似,但住院期间心脏导管插入术的使用随时间显著增加(ACS 1注册研究中为38.8%,ACS 2注册研究中为63.5%;P<0.001)。低、中、高风险组在ACS 1注册研究中的心脏导管插入率分别为48.0%、41.1%和27.3%,在ACS 2注册研究中分别为73.8%、66.9%和49.7%(两者趋势的P均<0.001)。在调整其他混杂因素后,与低风险患者相比,中风险(调整后的优势比为0.75;95%置信区间为0.63 - 0.90;P<0.001)和高风险(调整后的优势比为0.35;95%置信区间为0.28 - 0.45;P<0.001)患者接受心脏导管插入术的可能性仍然较低。此外,风险与住院期间血管重建和药物治疗的使用之间也存在类似的反比关系。
尽管在非ST段抬高型ACS管理中,心脏导管插入术和血管重建术的使用随时间增加,但基于证据的侵入性和药物治疗仍反常地针对低风险患者。必须实施消除这种治疗 - 风险悖论的策略,以充分实现侵入性管理的益处并优化其成本效益。