St. Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
Am J Cardiol. 2010 Apr 15;105(8):1090-4. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.12.010. Epub 2010 Feb 20.
Although medical co-morbidities commonly affect clinical outcomes after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), current performance measures of AMI quality focus exclusively on the management of the AMI itself. However, patients with AMIs frequently present with other co-morbidities, such as diabetes mellitus (DM), that also warrant assessment and management. To date, the quality of DM evaluation in patients presenting with AMIs has not been described. From January 2003 to June 2004, the Prospective Registry Evaluating Myocardial Infarction Patients: Events and Recovery-Quality Improvement (PREMIER-QI) enrolled 3,953 patients with AMIs at 19 centers in the United States. The frequency of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) assessment, either during the hospitalization or documented in the chart from the preceding 3 months, was prospectively evaluated. Among 1,168 patients with AMIs with preexisting DM, only 47% had recent HbA(1c) levels available, with marked variability in HbA(1c) assessment among hospitals (range 7% to 81%). Among those with available HbA(1c) levels, 39% had good control (HbA(1c) <7%), 36% had suboptimal control (HbA(1c) 7% to 9%), and 25% had poor control (HbA(1c) >9%). Patients with suboptimal and poor control were more likely to have their DM treatment intensified than those without HbA(1c) assessment (for HbA(1c) 7% to 9%, rate ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.85; for HbA(1c) >9%, rate ratio 2.20, 95% confidence interval 1.68 to 2.88). Similarly, patients with DM who had HbA(1c) measured were more likely to receive instructions on DM disease management before discharge. In conclusion, the assessment of chronic glycemic control is highly variable among patients with AMIs and DM. Because much of this variability occurs at the hospital level, the evaluation of DM control could represent an additional quality indicator and an opportunity to advance patient-centered AMI care.
虽然合并症在急性心肌梗死 (AMI) 后经常影响临床结果,但目前 AMI 质量的绩效评估仅专注于 AMI 本身的管理。然而,患有 AMI 的患者经常伴有其他合并症,如糖尿病 (DM),这也需要评估和管理。迄今为止,AMI 患者 DM 评估的质量尚未得到描述。2003 年 1 月至 2004 年 6 月,前瞻性评估心肌梗死患者事件和恢复质量改进研究 (PREMIER-QI) 在 19 个美国中心招募了 3953 例 AMI 患者。前瞻性评估糖化血红蛋白 (HbA1c) 评估的频率,无论是在住院期间还是在之前 3 个月的图表中记录。在 1168 例患有 AMI 的合并 DM 的患者中,仅有 47% 的患者最近有 HbA1c 水平,医院之间 HbA1c 评估的差异很大(范围为 7% 至 81%)。在有 HbA1c 水平的患者中,39% 的患者控制良好(HbA1c <7%),36% 的患者控制不佳(HbA1c 为 7% 至 9%),25% 的患者控制不佳(HbA1c >9%)。与没有 HbA1c 评估的患者相比,HbA1c 控制不佳和较差的患者更有可能加强 DM 治疗(对于 HbA1c 为 7% 至 9%,率比 1.38,95%置信区间 1.03 至 1.85;对于 HbA1c >9%,率比 2.20,95%置信区间 1.68 至 2.88)。同样,接受 HbA1c 测量的 DM 患者更有可能在出院前获得 DM 疾病管理的指导。总之,DM 患者的慢性血糖控制评估差异很大。由于这种差异大部分发生在医院层面,因此对 DM 控制的评估可能代表另一个质量指标,并为推进以患者为中心的 AMI 护理提供机会。