Association of Clinical Factors and Therapeutic Strategies With Improvements in Survival Following Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction, 2003-2013.

IMPORTANCE International studies report a decline in mortality following non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Whether this is due to lower baseline risk or increased utilization of guideline-indicated treatments is unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine whether changes in characteristics of patients with NSTEMI are associated with improvements in outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Data on patients with NSTEMI in 247 hospitals in England and Wales were obtained from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project between January 1, 2003, and June 30, 2013 (final follow-up, December 31, 2013). EXPOSURES Baseline demographics, clinical risk (GRACE risk score), and pharmacological and invasive coronary treatments. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Adjusted all-cause 180-day postdischarge mortality time trends estimated using flexible parametric survival modeling. RESULTS Among 389 057 patients with NSTEMI (median age, 72.7 years [IQR, 61.7-81.2 years]; 63.1% men), there were 113 586 deaths (29.2%). From 2003-2004 to 2012-2013, proportions with intermediate to high GRACE risk decreased (87.2% vs 82.0%); proportions with lowest risk increased (4.2% vs 7.6%; P= .01 for trend). The prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic renal failure, previous invasive coronary strategy, and current or ex-smoking status increased (all P < .001). Unadjusted all-cause mortality rates at 180 days decreased from 10.8% to 7.6% (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.968 [95% CI, 0.966-0.971]; difference in absolute mortality rate per 100 patients [AMR/100], -1.81 [95% CI, -1.95 to -1.67]). These findings were not substantially changed when adjusted additively by baseline GRACE risk score (HR, 0.975 [95% CI, 0.972-0.977]; AMR/100, -0.18 [95% CI, -0.21 to -0.16]), sex and socioeconomic status (HR, 0.975 [95% CI, 0.973-0.978]; difference in AMR/100, -0.24 [95% CI, -0.27 to -0.21]), comorbidities (HR, 0.973 [95% CI, 0.970-0.976]; difference in AMR/100, -0.44 [95% CI, -0.49 to -0.39]), and pharmacological therapies (HR, 0.972 [95% CI, 0.964-0.980]; difference in AMR/100, -0.53 [95% CI, -0.70 to -0.36]). However, the direction of association was reversed after further adjustment for use of an invasive coronary strategy (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01-1.03]; difference in AMR/100, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.33-0.86]), which was associated with a relative decrease in mortality of 46.1% (95% CI, 38.9%-52.0%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients hospitalized with NSTEMI in England and Wales, improvements in all-cause mortality were observed between 2003 and 2013. This was significantly associated with use of an invasive coronary strategy and not entirely related to a decline in baseline clinical risk or increased use of pharmacological therapies.

[1]  P. Collinson,et al.  High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I at presentation in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome: a cohort study , 2015, The Lancet.

[2]  S. Pocock,et al.  10-Year Mortality Outcome of a Routine Invasive Strategy Versus a Selective Invasive Strategy in Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: The British Heart Foundation RITA-3 Randomized Trial. , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  A. Hall,et al.  Mortality and missed opportunities along the pathway of care for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a national cohort study , 2015, European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care.

[4]  A. Jaffe,et al.  Sensitive Troponin Assay and the Classification of Myocardial Infarction , 2015, The American journal of medicine.

[5]  P. Collinson,et al.  High sensitivity cardiac troponin and the under-diagnosis of myocardial infarction in women: prospective cohort study , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  A. Jaffe,et al.  2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. , 2014, Circulation.

[7]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Non‐ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction in the United States: Contemporary Trends in Incidence, Utilization of the Early Invasive Strategy, and In‐Hospital Outcomes , 2014, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[8]  A. Hall,et al.  Trends in hospital treatments, including revascularisation, following acute myocardial infarction, 2003–2010: a multilevel and relative survival analysis for the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) , 2013, Heart.

[9]  A. Hall,et al.  Evaluation of the NICE mini-GRACE risk scores for acute myocardial infarction using the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) 2003–2009: National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) , 2012, Heart.

[10]  W. Banasiak,et al.  Temporal trends in the treatment and outcomes of patients With non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Poland from 2004-2010 (from the Polish Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes). , 2012, The American journal of cardiology.

[11]  D. Newby,et al.  Implications of lowering threshold of plasma troponin concentration in diagnosis of myocardial infarction: cohort study , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  R. West,et al.  Resolving inequalities in care? Reduced mortality in the elderly after acute coronary syndromes. The Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project 2003-2010. , 2012, European heart journal.

[13]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation , 2012 .

[14]  R. West,et al.  Multiple imputation for completion of a national clinical audit dataset , 2011, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  Paul C. Lambert,et al.  Flexible Parametric Survival Analysis Using Stata: Beyond the Cox Model , 2011 .

[16]  D. Newby,et al.  Implementation of a sensitive troponin I assay and risk of recurrent myocardial infarction and death in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. , 2011, JAMA.

[17]  L. Smeeth,et al.  The Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) , 2010, Heart.

[18]  C. Weston,et al.  Determinants and outcomes of coronary angiography after non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A cohort study of the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) , 2009, Heart.

[19]  M. Sabatine,et al.  Early invasive vs conservative treatment strategies in women and men with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. , 2008, JAMA.

[20]  K. Eagle,et al.  Decline in rates of death and heart failure in acute coronary syndromes, 1999-2006. , 2007, JAMA.

[21]  L. Wallentin,et al.  5-year outcomes in the FRISC-II randomised trial of an invasive versus a non-invasive strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: a follow-up study , 2006, The Lancet.

[22]  I. Scott,et al.  Early invasive versus conservative strategies for unstable angina & non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the stent era. , 2006, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[23]  Elizabeth R DeLong,et al.  Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. , 2006, JAMA.

[24]  F. Van de Werf,et al.  Intervention in acute coronary syndromes: do patients undergo intervention on the basis of their risk characteristics? The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) , 2005, Heart.

[25]  J. Gore,et al.  Decade-long changes in the use of combination evidence-based medical therapy at discharge for patients surviving acute myocardial infarction. , 2005, American heart journal.

[26]  P. Poole‐Wilson,et al.  5-year outcome of an interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial , 2005, The Lancet.

[27]  S. Yusuf,et al.  Routine vs selective invasive strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. , 2005, JAMA.

[28]  J. Alpert,et al.  A 25-year perspective into the changing landscape of patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (the Worcester Heart Attack Study). , 2004, The American journal of cardiology.

[29]  Á. Avezum,et al.  A validated prediction model for all forms of acute coronary syndrome: estimating the risk of 6-month postdischarge death in an international registry. , 2004, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

[30]  Á. Avezum,et al.  A validated prediction model for all forms of acute coronary syndrome:estimating the risk of 6-month postdischarge death in an international registry , 2004 .

[31]  E. Braunwald,et al.  Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  W. Rogers,et al.  Temporal trends in the treatment of over 1.5 million patients with myocardial infarction in the US from 1990 through 1999: the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 1, 2 and 3. , 2000, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[33]  J S Alpert,et al.  Myocardial infarction redefined--a consensus document of The Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction. , 2000, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[34]  D. Rubin.  INFERENCE AND MISSING DATA , 1975 .

[35]  I. Scott,et al.  Early invasive versus conservative strategies for unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in the stent era. , 2010, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.