Current Status and Hospital-Level Differences in Care and Outcomes of Patients With Acute Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in China: Insights From China Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry

BackgroundWith the growing burden of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), developing countries face great challenges in providing equitable treatment nationwide. However, little is known about hospital-level disparities in the quality of NSTEMI care in China. We aimed to investigate the variations in NSTEMI care and patient outcomes across the three hospital levels (province-, prefecture- and county-level, with decreasing scale) in China.MethodsData were derived from the China Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry on patients with NSTEMI consecutively registered between January 2013 and November 2016 from 31 provinces and municipalities throughout mainland China. Patients were categorized according to the hospital level they were admitted to. Multilevel generalized mixed models were fitted to examine the relationship between the hospital level and in-hospital mortality risk.ResultsIn total, 8,054 patients with NSTEMI were included (province-level: 1,698 patients; prefecture-level: 5,240 patients; county-level: 1,116 patients). Patients in the prefecture- and county-level hospitals were older, more likely to be female, and presented worse cardiac function than those in the province-level hospitals (P <0.05). Compared with the province-level hospitals, the rate of invasive strategies was significantly lower in the prefecture- and county-level hospitals (65.3, 43.3, and 15.4%, respectively, P <0.001). Invasive strategies were performed within the guideline-recommended timeframe in 25.4, 9.7, and 1.7% of very-high-risk patients, and 16.4, 7.4, and 2.4% of high-risk patients in province-, prefecture- and county-level hospitals, respectively (both P <0.001). The use of dual antiplatelet therapy in the county-level hospitals (87.2%) remained inadequate compared to the province- (94.5%, P <0.001) and prefecture-level hospitals (94.5%, P <0.001). There was an incremental trend of in-hospital mortality from province- to prefecture- to county-level hospitals (3.0, 4.4, and 6.9%, respectively, P-trend <0.001). After stepwise adjustment for patient characteristics, presentation, hospital facilities and in-hospital treatments, the hospital-level gap in mortality risk gradually narrowed and lost statistical significance in the fully adjusted model [Odds ratio: province-level vs. prefecture-level: 1.23 (0.73–2.05), P = 0.441; province-level vs. county-level: 1.61 (0.80–3.26), P = 0.182; P-trend = 0.246].ConclusionsThere were significant variations in NSTEMI presentation and treatment patterns across the three hospital levels in China, which may largely explain the hospital-level disparity in in-hospital mortality. Quality improvement initiatives are warranted, especially among lower-level hospitals.

Download Full-text

Appropriate secondary prevention and clinical outcomes after acute myocardial infarction according to atherothrombotic risk stratification: The FAST-MI 2010 registry

European Journal of Preventive Cardiology ◽

10.1177/2047487318808638 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 26 (4) ◽

pp. 411-419 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Victoria Tea ◽

Marc Bonaca ◽

Chekrallah Chamandi ◽

Marie-Christine Iliou ◽

Thibaut Lhermusier ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Myocardial Infarction ◽

Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽

High Risk ◽

Secondary Prevention ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients ◽

St Elevation ◽

Group 3 ◽

Group 2 ◽

Group 1

Background Full secondary prevention medication regimen is often under-prescribed after acute myocardial infarction. Design The purpose of this study was to analyse the relationship between prescription of appropriate secondary prevention treatment at discharge and long-term clinical outcomes according to risk level defined by the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS-2P) after acute myocardial infarction. Methods We used data from the 2010 French Registry of Acute ST-Elevation or non-ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI) registry, including 4169 consecutive acute myocardial infarction patients admitted to cardiac intensive care units in France. Level of risk was stratified in three groups using the TRS-2P score: group 1 (low-risk; TRS-2P=0/1); group 2 (intermediate-risk; TRS-2P=2); and group 3 (high-risk; TRS-2P≥3). Appropriate secondary prevention treatment was defined according to the latest guidelines (dual antiplatelet therapy and moderate/high dose statins for all; new-P2Y12 inhibitors, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor-blockers and beta-blockers as indicated). Results Prevalence of groups 1, 2 and 3 was 46%, 25% and 29% respectively. Appropriate secondary prevention treatment at discharge was used in 39.5%, 37% and 28% of each group, respectively. After multivariate adjustment, evidence-based treatments at discharge were associated with lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (death, re-myocardial infarction or stroke) at five years especially in high-risk patients: hazard ratio = 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.59–1.12, p = 0.21) in group 1, 0.74 (0.54–1.01; p = 0.06) in group 2, and 0.64 (0.52–0.79, p < 0.001) in group 3. Conclusions Use of appropriate secondary prevention treatment at discharge was inversely correlated with patient risk. The increased hazard related to lack of prescription of recommended medications was much larger in high-risk patients. Specific efforts should be directed at better prescription of recommended treatment, particularly in high-risk patients.

Download Full-text