Roe Matthew T, Chen Anita Y, Cannon Christopher P, Rao Sunil, Rumsfeld John, Magid David J, Brindis Ralph, Klein Lloyd W, Gibler W Brian, Ohman E Magnus, Peterson Eric D
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009 Sep;2(5):414-20. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.109.850248. Epub 2009 Jul 28.
BACKGROUND: The risks of late stent thrombosis with drug-eluting stents (DES) were intensely debated after the presentation of a number of studies highlighting this issue in September 2006. We evaluated trends in the use of DES for patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from 2006 to 2008. METHODS AND RESULTS: Temporal patterns of DES use were examined among non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients in the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Supress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines (CRUSADE; January 2006 to December 2006) and Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network-Get With The Guidelines (ACTION-GWTG; January 2007 to June 2008) registries to determine how practice patterns changed for patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing PCI. Among the 54 662 patients analyzed, the percentage of patients undergoing PCI by quarter varied from 54% to 58% during the analysis time period. More than 90% of patients undergoing PCI received a DES in the first 3 quarters of 2006 before the public debate about the risks of DES began. Thereafter, the use of DES for PCI patients declined during the fourth quarter of 2006 through the first quarter of 2007 (82% to 67%), gradually declined during quarters 2 to 4 of 2007 (63% to 63% to 59%) but then slightly increased from the first to second quarter of 2008 (58% to 60%). Hospital characteristics did not seem to correlate with temporal changes in DES use, but by the last 2 quarters of the study period, patient characteristics such as white race, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and private or managed care insurance were more common among patients who received a DES compared with the beginning 2 quarters of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight how rapidly treatment decisions in contemporary practice can be affected by public debate related to scientific presentations and publications.
背景:2006年9月多项研究强调药物洗脱支架(DES)存在晚期支架血栓形成风险后,对此展开了激烈辩论。我们评估了2006年至2008年接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的非ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者使用DES的趋势。 方法与结果:在“不稳定型心绞痛患者快速风险分层:早期实施ACC/AHA指南抑制不良结局”(CRUSADE;2006年1月至2006年12月)和“急性冠状动脉治疗与干预结局网络-遵循指南”(ACTION-GWTG;2007年1月至2008年6月)注册研究中,检查了非ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者使用DES的时间模式,以确定接受PCI的急性心肌梗死患者的治疗模式如何变化。在分析的54662例患者中,分析时间段内按季度接受PCI的患者百分比在54%至58%之间变化。在关于DES风险的公开辩论开始前,2006年前三季度超过90%接受PCI的患者使用了DES。此后,2006年第四季度至2007年第一季度,PCI患者使用DES的比例下降(从82%降至67%),2007年第二季度至第四季度逐渐下降(从63%降至63%再降至59%),但随后从2008年第一季度至第二季度略有增加(从58%升至60%)。医院特征似乎与DES使用的时间变化无关,但到研究期的最后两个季度,与研究期开始的两个季度相比,接受DES的患者中白人种族患者、高血压患者、糖尿病患者以及拥有私人保险或管理式医疗保健保险的患者更为常见。 结论:这些发现凸显了当代临床实践中的治疗决策能多么迅速地受到与科学报告和出版物相关的公开辩论的影响。
J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2012-10-5
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012-1
J Eval Clin Pract. 2011-12-2