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.

A novel prognostic index for sporadic Burkitt lymphoma in adult patients: a real-word multicenter study

Background Adult sporadic Burkitt lymphoma (BL) is a rare but highly aggressive subtype of lymphoma which lacks its own unique prognostic model. Systemic inflammatory biomarkers have been confirmed as prognostic markers in several types of malignancy. Our objective was to explore the predictive value of pretreatment inflammatory biomarkers and establish a novel, clinically applicable prognostic index for adult patients with sporadic BL. Methods We surveyed retrospectively 336 adult patients with newly diagnosed sporadic BL at 8 Chinese medical centers and divided into training cohort (n = 229) and validation cohort (n = 107). The pretreatment inflammatory biomarkers were calculated for optimal cut-off value. The association between serum biomarkers and overall survival (OS) was analyzed by Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox proportional models. The risk stratification was defined based on normal LDH level, Ann Arbor stage of I and completely resected abdominal lesion or single extra-abdominal mass < 10 cm. Results and conclusions Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that platelets< 254 × 109/L, albumin< 40 g/L, lactate dehydrogenase≥334 U/L independently predicted unfavorable OS. We used these data as the basis for the prognostic index, in which patients were stratified into Group 1 (no or one risk factor), Group 2 (two risk factors), or Group 3 (three risk factors), which were associated with 5-year OS rates of 88.1, 72.4, and 45%, respectively. In the subgroup analysis for high-risk patients, our prognostic model results showed that high-risk patients with no more than one adverse factor presented a 5-year survival rate of 85.9%, but patients with three adverse factors had a 5-year survival rate of 43.0%. Harrell’s concordance index (C-index) of the risk group score was 0.768. Therefore, the new prognostic model could be used to develop risk-adapted treatment approaches for adult sporadic BL.

A Postsurgical Prognostic Nomogram for Locally Advanced Rectosigmoid Cancer to Assist in Patient Selection for Adjuvant Chemotherapy

BackgroundThe perioperative treatment model for locally advanced rectosigmoid junction cancer (LARSC) has not been finalized; whether this model should refer to the treatment model for rectal cancer remains controversial.MethodsWe screened 10,188 patients with stage II/III rectosigmoid junction adenocarcinoma who underwent surgery between 2004 and 2016 from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Among them, 4,960 did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, while 5,228 did receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Propensity score matching was used to balance the two groups for confounding factors, and the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used for survival analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify independent prognostic factors and build a predictive nomogram of survival for LARSC. X-tile software was used to divide the patients into three groups (low, medium, and high) according to their risk scores. 726 patients in our hospital were included for external validation.ResultsLARSC patients did not show a benefit from neoadjuvant radiotherapy (P&gt;0.05). After further excluding patients who received neoadjuvant radiotherapy, multivariate analysis found that age, grade, tumor size, T stage, and log odds of positive lymph nodes were independent prognostic factors for patients without adjuvant chemotherapy and were included in the nomogram. The C-index of the model was 0.690 (95% confidence interval: 0.668–0.712). We divided the patients into low, moderate, and high risk subgroups based on prediction scores of the nomogram. We found that adjuvant chemotherapy did not improve the prognosis of low risk patients, while moderate and high risk patients benefited from adjuvant therapy. External validation data found that moderate, and high risk patients also benefited from AT.ConclusionDirect surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy may be the best perioperative treatment for LARSC. Moreover, adjuvant chemotherapy is only recommended for moderate and high risk patients as it did not benefit low risk patients.