0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Understanding Physicians' Risk Stratification of Acute Coronary Syndromes:  Insights From the Canadian ACS 2 Registry FREE

Andrew T. Yan, MD; Raymond T. Yan, MD; Thao Huynh, MD, MSc; Amparo Casanova, MD, PhD; F. Emilio Raimondo, MD; David H. Fitchett, MD; Anatoly Langer, MD, MSc; Shaun G. Goodman, MD, MSc ; Canadian Acute Coronary Syndrome Registry 2 Investigators
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Terrence Donnelly Heart Centre, Division of Cardiology, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Drs A. T. Yan, R. T. Yan, Fitchett, Langer, and Goodman); Canadian Heart Research Centre, Toronto (Drs A. T. Yan, R. T. Yan, Casanova, Fitchett, Langer and Goodman); Division of Cardiology, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (Dr Huynh); Niagara Health System, St Catherines, Ontario (Dr Raimondo).Group Information: A list of participating Canadian ACS Registry 2 Investigators and Coordinators was published in Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(10):1009-1016.


Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(4):372-378. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2008.563.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  An important treatment-risk paradox exists in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). However, the process of risk stratification by physicians and its relationship to the management of ACS have not been well studied. Our objective was to examine patient risk assessment by physicians in relation to treatment and objective risk score evaluation and the underlying patient characteristics that physicians consider to indicate high risk.

Methods  The prospective Canadian ACS 2 Registry recruited 1956 patients admitted for non-ST-segment elevation ACS in 36 hospitals in October 2002 to December 2003. We recorded patient risk assessment by the treating physician and case management on standardized case report forms and calculated the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI), Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy (PURSUIT), and Global Registry of Acute Cardiac Events (GRACE) risk scores.

Results  Of the 1956 patients with ACS, 347 (17.8%) were classified as low risk, 822 (42.0%) as intermediate risk, and 787 (40.2%) as high risk by their treating physicians. Patients considered as high risk were more likely to receive aggressive medical therapies and to undergo coronary angiography and revascularization. However, there were only weak correlations between risk assessment by physicians and all 3 validated risk scores. In multivariable analysis, history of stroke, worse Killip class, presence of ST-segment deviation, T-wave inversion, and positive cardiac biomarker status were all independently associated with high-risk categorization by the treating physician, while advanced age and previous coronary bypass surgery were independent negative predictors. There was no significant association between the high-risk category and several established prognosticators, such as history of heart failure, hemodynamic variables, and creatinine level.

Conclusions  Contemporary risk stratification of ACS appears suboptimal and may perpetuate the treatment-risk paradox. Physicians may not recognize and incorporate the most powerful adverse prognosticators into overall patient risk assessment. Routine use of validated risk score may enhance risk stratification and facilitate more appropriate tailoring of intensive therapies toward high-risk patients.

Figures in this Article

Because non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) encompass a broad spectrum of clinical conditions, accurate risk stratification is a critical step in optimal patient care.1,2 The overriding principle is to selectively target more intensive medical and interventional treatment toward high-risk patients.

Recent studies have demonstrated important treatment disparities, showing that high-risk patients paradoxically receive less aggressive therapies.38 This “treatment-risk paradox” has been based on objective risk assessment. Although validated risk scores may supersede and provide incremental prognostic information beyond subjective risk assessment,912 they have not been widely adopted in routine clinical practice.13 Indeed, physicians' underestimation of patient risk may contribute to the observed treatment-risk paradox.14 Nevertheless, the process of risk stratification and its relationship to patient care in the “real world” have not been elucidated.

Accordingly, our objective was to examine (1) patient risk assessment by physicians in relation to treatment and objective risk score evaluation and (2) the underlying patient characteristics that physicians consider to indicate high risk. A better understanding of the current risk stratification scheme and its shortcomings may be crucial to improve the quality of care for patients with ACS.

STUDY DESIGN AND POPULATION

The study rationale and design of the Canadian ACS Registries have been previously described.7,15 Briefly, the Canadian ACS 2 Registry was a prospective, multicenter, observational study of patients 18 years or older who were hospitalized for suspected non-ST-segment elevation ACS (symptoms consistent with acute cardiac ischemia within 24 hours of onset), which was not accompanied or precipitated by a serious concurrent illness (eg, trauma or gastrointestinal tract bleeding). There were no other specific exclusion criteria, and we encouraged all participating hospitals to enroll consecutive patients to reduce patient selection bias. At each site, the designated physician or study coordinator collected data on patient demographics, clinical features, in-hospital treatment, and outcome on standardized case report forms, which were then forwarded to the Canadian Heart Research Centre and scanned into an electronic database (Teleform, version 7.0; Cardiff, San Diego, California). The appendix of the case report form included a brief summary of the contemporary Canadian practice guidelines on the management of ACS.16 The Canadian Heart Research Centre performed central data checks and sent queries to sites for data correction. The research ethics board at each participating hospital approved the study protocol, and the local study coordinator obtained informed consent from all patients who were followed up after discharge.

Between October 2002 and December 2003, the ACS 2 Registry recruited 2359 patients with suspected ACS from 36 participating hospitals (33% had on-site cardiac catheterization laboratories and 42% had teaching affiliations) in Canada; 1956 (82.9%) had a final diagnosis of ACS (unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) according to the most responsible physician. These 1956 patients constituted the present study cohort. Cardiologists were the most responsible physicians for the majority of patients (72.8%), followed by general internists (26.0%) and others (1.2%).

RISK STRATIFICATION

On the case report form, we asked the treating physician to categorize each patient into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, based on overall risk assessment of medical history (eg, age), physical examination (eg, heart failure or hemodynamic instability), and laboratory investigations (eg, electrocardiogram, cardiac biomarker).16 The early risk stratification approach based on initial clinical presentation, according to the Canadian ACS guidelines (similar to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association [AHA/ACC] guidelines), was recommended in the case report form. However, physicians were not required to prospectively complete this section within a certain time frame after admission. For comparison with systematic risk assessment, we calculated the Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy (PURSUIT), Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI), and Global Registry of Acute Cardiac Events (GRACE) risk scores for each patient, according to the published nomograms.1719 All 3 risk scores were determined using clinical characteristics at presentation. To calculate the TIMI risk score for patients without prior coronary angiography, we assigned 1 point if there was a history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization in substitution for known coronary artery stenosis of 50% or greater.20,21 Although the proportions of missing data were small (<2% for most variables, except 8.7% for Killip class), we could not calculate the TIMI, PURSUIT, and GRACE risk scores for 9 (0.5%), 195 (10.0%), and 220 (11.2%) patients, respectively.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Continuous variables are presented as medians with interquartile ranges and discrete variables as percentages. We used the Kendall τ-b test to examine trends and correlations. The TIMI, PURSUIT, and GRACE risk scores were analyzed as continuous variables. For presentation of the patients' baseline characteristics, we stratified the study cohort into 3 groups based on the physicians' risk assessments (low, intermediate, and high risk).

Because evidence-based practice guidelines recommend early aggressive therapies (eg, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and an early invasive strategy) specifically for high-risk patients, we focused on clinical features that distinguish the high-risk group from the low- and intermediate-risk groups combined. To determine the patient characteristics that independently influenced the physicians' risk assessments, we developed a multivariable logistic regression model to predict the high-risk category. Candidate predictor variables included all relevant baseline characteristics (listed in Table 1) that were associated with high-risk category on bivariate analysis (P < .25) and the components of the TIMI, PURSUIT, and GRACE risk scores. Because the ACS 2 Registry only recruited few (5.8%) very elderly (aged ≥85 years) patients, we stratified age into 3 groups using the following recommended cut points: younger than 65 years, 65 to 74 years, and 75 years or older.22 We also considered the following variables in the multivariable model: physician's discipline (cardiologist vs others), teaching vs nonteaching hospitals, and the presence vs absence of cardiac catheterization facilities on site. A parsimonious model was constructed by backward elimination (for P > .05) of the candidate predictor variables. We used generalized estimating equations to account for within-hospital correlations,23 since patients admitted to the same hospital were more likely to be similar. We tested for selected interaction terms (with age groups) in the final model. To confirm the robustness of our results, we performed additional analyses. First, we repeated the analysis to include all enrolled patients with suspected ACS (ie, including those with a final non-ACS diagnosis). Second, because physicians might be less adept at integrating continuous variables (heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and creatinine level) into overall risk assessment, they were also analyzed as dichotomous variables (using the following predefined cut points for abnormal: >100 beats/min, <100 mm Hg, and >1.36 mg/dL [to convert to micromoles per liter, multiply by 88.4], respectively) in a separate multivariable model. Third, the intermediate- and high-risk groups were combined in a sensitivity analysis, with low-risk patients serving as the reference group. Finally, we excluded patients who had in-hospital death and/or myocardial (re-) infarction because these events might have had an undue impact on physician's risk assessment. Model discrimination and calibration were evaluated by the C statistic and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, respectively. We performed data analysis using SPSS version 15.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois) and considered 2-sided P values <.05 as statistically significant.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics by Patient Risk Categories (as Estimated by the Treating Physicians)

Of the 1956 patients with ACS in this study, 347 (17.8%) were classified as low risk, 822 (42.0%) as intermediate risk, and 787 (40.2%) as high risk by their treating physicians. Table 1 summarizes the baseline characteristics of the patients stratified by the risk categories. Patients considered to be high risk were more likely to have diabetes, worse Killip class, ST-segment deviation, T-wave inversion, and positive biomarker status on presentation. Age was not different across the 3 risk groups.

Table 2 summarizes the use of antiplatelet and antithrombin medications within 24 hours of hospitalization. In general, there were significant positive trends in the use of these drugs across the higher risk groups. Compared with the low- and intermediate-risk groups, the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration rate was almost 10 times and 2.5 times greater, respectively, in the high-risk group.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Administration of Antiplatelet and Antithrombotic Therapies Within 24 Hours of Admission and Medication Use at Discharge

Table 3 demonstrates a similar positive relationship between the use of invasive cardiac procedures and the risk category. High-risk patients more frequently underwent cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary bypass surgery during index hospitalization (P for trend, all <.001). Furthermore, the time to these procedures was significantly shorter in the high-risk group.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. In-Hospital Use of Invasive Cardiac Proceduresa

Although there were positive significant trends (P < .001 for all) with increasing TIMI, PURSUIT, and GRACE risk scores across the higher risk groups (Table 1), the correlations were weak. The Kendall τ-b correlation coefficients with the physician-assigned risk groups were 0.08, 0.10, and 0.14 for TIMI, PURSUIT, and GRACE risk scores, respectively.

The Figure illustrates the relatively wide scatter in the calculated TIMI, PURSUIT, and GRACE risk scores within each group. There was also substantial overlap among the 3 risk groups, with some low-risk patients having high TIMI, PURSUIT, and GRACE risk scores. Conversely, some high-risk patients had relatively low calculated TIMI, PURSUIT, and GRACE risk scores.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Box plots of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) (A), Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin (PURSUIT) (B), and Global Registry of Acute Cardiac Events (GRACE) (C) risk scores by patient risk categories according to the treating physician. Horizontal bars indicate median; bottom and top edges of boxes, 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively; top and bottom whiskers, smallest and largest values that are not outliers, respectively; and circles outside the whiskers, outliers (1.5 to 3 box lengths from the edge of the box).

Graphic Jump Location

In multivariable analysis, history of stroke, worse Killip class, presence of ST-segment deviation, T-wave inversion, and positive cardiac biomarker status were all independent predictors of the high-risk category according to the treating physician, while elderly patients and those with previous coronary bypass surgery were less likely to be regarded as high risk (Table 4). History of myocardial infarction or heart failure, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and creatinine level were not significantly associated with the high-risk category. The model C statistic was 0.74, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow P value was .58, indicating good discrimination and calibration, respectively. Physician's specialty and hospital type (teaching and on-site cardiac catheterization facilities) were not retained in the final model (all P > .25) and exhibited no significant interactions with age groups. Similar results were obtained when heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and creatinine level were analyzed as dichotomous variables or when all patients with suspected ACS were included. Sensitivity analysis revealed that age, previous myocardial infarction or heart failure, and hemodynamic variables were also not independent predictors of the intermediate- or high-risk group. Finally, exclusion of patients who died or had a myocardial (re-)infarction during admission did not alter the main results, except that previous stroke and previous coronary bypass surgery were no longer significant independent predictors (P = .07 and .16, respectively).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Independent Predictors of High Risk Category According to the Treating Physician

We further explored possible age-related differences by examining interaction terms. The adjusted odds ratios for ST-segment deviation were 2.61 (95% CI, 1.83-3.72; P < .001) for age younger than 65 years, 1.70 (95% CI, 1.10-2.62; P = .02) for age between 65 and 74 years, and 1.91 (95% CI, 1.16-3.16; P = .01) for age 75 years or older; the adjusted odds ratios for abnormal biomarker were 4.23 (95% CI, 3.00-5.96; P < .001), 5.77 (95% CI, 3.25-10.26; P < .001), and 6.72 (95% CI, 3.84-11.76; P < .001), respectively.

In this “real-world” study of a broad spectrum of patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS, we found that treatment intensity was commensurate with the patient's risk as estimated by the treating physician. However, there was a poor correlation between physicians' risk assessments and validated risk scores. Furthermore, several well-established and powerful prognosticators did not have an impact on the physician's estimation of the patient's risk. To our knowledge, the present study is the first to closely examine the relationship between validated risk scores and physicians' risk assessments in practice.

Current ACC/AHA practice guidelines state that “optimal risk stratification requires accounting for multiple prognostic factors simultaneously by a multivariable approach”1(p165) and specifically endorse the use of the TIMI, PURSUIT, and GRACE risk scores as potentially useful risk assessment tools (class IIa recommendation). These risk scores have been developed and extensively validated in various clinical trial and registry patient populations, with adequate discriminatory performance for routine clinical use.12,1820,2429 More important, these risk scores are superior to risk assessment by physicians in predicting long-term outcome in the Canadian ACS 2 Registry, implying that they may be a valuable adjunct to clinical judgment in medical decision making.12 Despite this, risk scores seem to be underused in the real world.13

The present study demonstrates a weak correlation between risk assessment by physicians and all 3 validated risk scores. As expected, we observed a direct relationship between treatment intensity and patient risk as perceived by the treating physician—patients deemed to be high risk were more likely to receive potent antithrombotic therapies and to undergo coronary angiography and revascularization. In contrast, when patients with ACS were stratified by risk scores, a treatment-risk paradox became evident and was consistent in the Canadian ACS Registries and several other large observational studies.38 Moreover, in the Canadian ACS 2 Registry, of the patients who were not referred for cardiac catheterization because they were thought to be “not at high enough risk,” the majority were at intermediate or high risk based on their TIMI risk score.14 Thus, our findings strongly suggest that the current treatment-risk paradox is at least partly mediated by ineffective risk stratification.

Of particular concern is the paradoxical assignment of elderly patients with ACS to the lower risk group by their treating physicians. Physicians may hold the misguided belief that ACS in a young patient must portend a rapidly progressive course of disease, while failing to recognize that severe coronary disease and left ventricular dysfunction are in fact more prevalent among elderly patients.14,22 In the GRACE risk model for postdischarge 6-month mortality, which was derived from more than 15 000 unselected patients with ACS, age alone (Wald χ2 = 228.6) accounts for most of the prognostic information and is much stronger than most other well-recognized adverse prognosticators, such as positive biomarker status (Wald χ2 = 33.3) or ST depression (Wald χ2 = 19.2).30 Even in randomized controlled trials that preferentially excluded older patients with serious comorbidities, age remains the single most powerful predictor of death and the composite end point of death or myocardial (re-)infarction.17,3134 Because an early invasive strategy is more effective in high-risk ACS, elderly patients may stand to gain the greatest therapeutic benefits.22 In TACTICS (Treat Angina With Aggrastat and Determine Cost of Therapy With an Invasive or Conservative Strategy)-TIMI 18, an early invasive strategy conferred an absolute risk reduction in death or myocardial (re-)infarction at 6 months that was most pronounced in the elderly group (aged >75 years).35 Although treatment decisions must be carefully individualized by taking the patient's overall health context into consideration, the mere underrecognition of risk in elderly patients may deprive them of substantial improvement in survival and quality of life.

Physicians may tend to focus on dichotomous findings (normal vs abnormal) in risk assessment. Both ST-segment deviation on the electrocardiogram and elevated cardiac biomarker are strong independent predictors of the high-risk category in the present study. While this is concordant with guideline recommendations,1,2,16 it is noteworthy that other readily available clinical data, such as previous heart failure, heart rate, and blood pressure on presentation, carry at least as much prognostic significance as these laboratory findings17,19,30 but are underrepresented in the physicians' risk assessment. These results lend further credence to the notion that without the aid of risk scores, accurate and comprehensive integration of numerous prognostic factors is a daunting task, which may prove to be overwhelming in day-to-day practice.913

Several study limitations should be noted. Although encouraged in this registry, we could not confirm consecutive patient enrollment, and participating hospitals were not a true population-based random sample. Risk assessment by physicians might be influenced by unusual high-risk features (eg, very strong family history of premature coronary artery disease or known left main coronary artery disease) not captured on the case report form, although overall, it remained inferior to risk score assessment in predicting outcome.12 Furthermore, physicians' risk assessments may have been biased or enhanced by subsequent test results and events during index hospitalization. Nevertheless, we have previously shown that the prognostic accuracy of risk scores (based only on initial presentation) was superior to risk assessment by physicians for 1-year outcome. Clinical decision making in the management of ACS is complex, and accurate risk stratification is only one of its key components. We did not collect detailed information on physician characteristics such as training and experience, which may be related to proficiency in patient risk estimation. Nonetheless, our results reflect real-world practice. Finally, the previous iteration of ACS treatment guidelines in 200236 did not specifically support the use of risk scores for risk stratification when the ACS 2 Registry was conducted. Yet, this should not detract from our conclusion that global subjective risk assessment often neglects to incorporate all the key prognosticators.

In conclusion, contemporary risk stratification of ACSs appears suboptimal and may promote the existing treatment-risk paradox. Physicians often fail to identify the most powerful adverse prognosticators and to effectively integrate them into overall risk assessment. Our findings underscore the challenges of optimal tailoring of evidence-based therapies in the real world, and the potential utility of validated risk scores to better guide individual patient care. Coupled with sound clinical judgment, systematic application of validated risk scores may present a novel and promising strategy to eradicate the treatment-risk paradox in the management of ACSs.

Correspondence: Andrew T. Yan, MD, Division of Cardiology, St Michael's Hospital, Queen 6-030, 30 Bond St, Toronto, ON M5B 1W8, Canada (yana@smh.toronto.on.ca).

Accepted for Publication: September 8, 2008.

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: A. T. Yan and Goodman. Acquisition of data: Raimondo, Langer, and Goodman. Analysis and interpretation of data: A. T. Yan, Huynh, Casanova, Raimondo, Fitchett, Langer, and Goodman. Drafting of the manuscript: A. T. Yan and R. T. Yan. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: A. T. Yan, R. T. Yan, Huynh, Casanova, Raimondo, Fitchett, Langer, and Goodman. Statistical analysis: A. T. Yan, R. T. Yan, Casanova, and Langer. Obtained funding: Goodman. Administrative, technical, and material support: Goodman. Study supervision: Fitchett and Goodman.

Financial Disclosure: Dr A. T. Yan has received research grant support and honoraria from Sanofi Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr Huynh has received research grant support from Sanofi Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Fitchett has received speaker and consulting honoraria and research grant support from Key Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi Aventis, Pfizer, and Key Schering. Dr Langer has received research grant support and/or honoraria for educational activities and/or served as a consultant to Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Biovail, BMS, Boston Scientific, Cordis (J&J), DuPont, Eli Lilly, Fournier, GlaxoSmithKline, Guidant, Medtronic, Merck Schering, Novartis, Oryx, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr Goodman has received speaker and consulting honoraria and research grant support from Key Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi Aventis, Pfizer, and Key Schering.

Funding/Support: The Canadian ACS 2 Registry was sponsored by the Canadian Heart Research Centre (a federally incorporated not-for-profit academic research organization), Pfizer Canada Inc, Sanofi Aventis Canada Inc, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Inc. Dr A. T. Yan is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the New Investigator Award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Dr R. T. Yan is a recipient of the Research Fellowship Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Detweiler Travelling Fellowship from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.

Role of the Sponsors: The industrial sponsors had no involvement in the study conception or design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing, review, or approval of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: Sue Francis provided secretarial assistance. We are indebted to all the study investigators, coordinators, and patients who participated in the Canadian ACS Registries.

Anderson  JLAdams  CDAntman  EM  et al.  ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction): developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons: endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Circulation 2007;116 (7) e148- e304
PubMed Link to Article
Bassand  JPHamm  CWArdissino  D  et al. Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes of the European Society of Cardiology, Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2007;28 (13) 1598- 1660
PubMed Link to Article
Spertus  JAWeiss  NSEvery  NRWeaver  WDMyocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Project Investigators, The influence of clinical risk factors on the use of angiography and revascularization after acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 1995;155 (21) 2309- 2316
PubMed Link to Article
Bhatt  DLRoe  MTPeterson  ED  et al. CRUSADE Investigators, Utilization of early invasive management strategies for high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative. JAMA 2004;292 (17) 2096- 2104
PubMed Link to Article
Roe  MTPeterson  EDNewby  LK  et al.  The influence of risk status on guideline adherence for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J 2006;151 (6) 1205- 1213
PubMed Link to Article
Fox  KAAnderson  FA  JrDabbous  OH  et al. GRACE investigators, Intervention in acute coronary syndromes: do patients undergo intervention on the basis of their risk characteristics? the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). Heart 2007;93 (2) 177- 182
PubMed Link to Article
Yan  ATYan  RTTan  M  et al. Canadian Acute Coronary Syndromes 1 and 2 Registry Investigators, Management patterns in relation to risk stratification among patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes. Arch Intern Med 2007;167 (10) 1009- 1016
PubMed Link to Article
Spertus  JAFurman  MI Translating evidence into practice: are we neglecting the neediest? Arch Intern Med 2007;167 (10) 987- 988
PubMed Link to Article
Ohman  EMGranger  CBHarrington  RALee  KL Risk stratification and therapeutic decision making in acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 2000;284 (7) 876- 878
PubMed Link to Article
Weintraub  WS Prediction scores after myocardial infarction: value, limitations, and future directions. Circulation 2002;106 (18) 2292- 2293
PubMed Link to Article
Wong  CKWhite  HD Value of community-derived risk models for stratifying patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2005;26 (9) 851- 852
PubMed Link to Article
Yan  ATYan  RTTan  M  et al.  Risk scores for risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes: useful but simpler is not necessarily better. Eur Heart J 2007;28 (9) 1072- 1078
PubMed Link to Article
Manfrini  OBugiardini  R Barriers to clinical risk scores adoption. Eur Heart J 2007;28 (9) 1045- 1046
PubMed Link to Article
Lee  CHTan  MYan  AT  et al. Canadian Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS) Registry II Investigators, Use of cardiac catheterization for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes according to initial risk: reasons why physicians choose not to refer their patients. Arch Intern Med 2008;168 (3) 291- 296
PubMed Link to Article
Yan  ATTan  MFitchett  D  et al. Canadian Acute Coronary Syndromes Registry Investigators, One-year outcome of patients after acute coronary syndromes (from the Canadian Acute Coronary Syndromes Registry). Am J Cardiol 2004;94 (1) 25- 29
PubMed Link to Article
Fitchett  DGoodman  SGGupta  MLanger  A Preventing thrombosis: update of first-line therapy in the management of non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Can J Cardiol 2002;18 (11) 1179- 1190
PubMed
Boersma  EPieper  KSSteyerberg  EW  et al. PURSUIT Investigators, Predictors of outcome in patients with acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST-segment elevation: results from an international trial of 9461 patients. Circulation 2000;101 (22) 2557- 2567
PubMed Link to Article
Antman  EMCohen  MBernink  PJ  et al.  The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: a method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making. JAMA 2000;284 (7) 835- 842
PubMed Link to Article
Granger  CBGoldberg  RJDabbous  O  et al. Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events Investigators, Predictors of hospital mortality in the global registry of acute coronary events. Arch Intern Med 2003;163 (19) 2345- 2353
PubMed Link to Article
Scirica  BMCannon  CPAntman  EM  et al.  Validation of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) risk score for unstable angina pectoris and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the TIMI III registry. Am J Cardiol 2002;90 (3) 303- 305
PubMed Link to Article
Morrow  DAAntman  EMSnapinn  SM McCabe  CHTheroux  PBraunwald  E An integrated clinical approach to predicting the benefit of tirofiban in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: application of the TIMI Risk Score for UA/NSTEMI in PRISM-PLUS. Eur Heart J 2002;23 (3) 223- 229
PubMed Link to Article
Alexander  KPNewby  LKCannon  CP  et al.  Acute coronary care in the elderly, part I: Non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology: in collaboration with the Society of Geriatric Cardiology. Circulation 2007;115 (19) 2549- 2569
PubMed Link to Article
Fitzmaurice  GMLaird  NMWare  JH  Applied Longitudinal Analysis.   Hoboken, NJ Wiley-Interscience2004;
Brilakis  ESWright  RSKopecky  SL  et al.  Association of the PURSUIT risk score with predischarge ejection fraction, angiographic severity of coronary artery disease, and mortality in a nonselected, community-based population with non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 2003;146 (5) 811- 818
PubMed Link to Article
de Araújo Gonçalves  PFerreira  JAguiar  CSeabra-Gomes  R TIMI, PURSUIT, and GRACE risk scores: sustained prognostic value and interaction with revascularization in NSTE-ACS. Eur Heart J 2005;26 (9) 865- 872
PubMed Link to Article
Alter  DAVenkatesh  VChong  A Evaluating the performance of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk-adjustment index across socioeconomic strata among patients discharged from the hospital after acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 2006;151 (2) 323- 331
PubMed Link to Article
Yan  ATJong  PYan  RT  et al. Canadian Acute Coronary Syndromes Registry Investigators, Clinical trial–derived risk model may not generalize to real-world patients with acute coronary syndrome. Am Heart J 2004;148 (6) 1020- 1027
PubMed Link to Article
Tang  EWWong  CKHerbison  P Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) hospital discharge risk score accurately predicts long-term mortality post acute coronary syndrome. Am Heart J 2007;153 (1) 29- 35
PubMed Link to Article
Fox  KADabbous  OHGoldberg  RJ  et al.  Prediction of risk of death and myocardial infarction in the six months after presentation with acute coronary syndrome: prospective multinational observational study (GRACE). BMJ 2006;333 (7578) 1091
PubMed Link to Article
Eagle  KALim  MJDabbous  OH  et al. GRACE Investigators, A validated prediction model for all forms of acute coronary syndrome: estimating the risk of 6-month postdischarge death in an international registry. JAMA 2004;291 (22) 2727- 2733
PubMed Link to Article
Armstrong  PWFu  YChang  WC  et al. GUSTO-IIb Investigators, Acute coronary syndromes in the GUSTO-IIb trial: prognostic insights and impact of recurrent ischemia. Circulation 1998;98 (18) 1860- 1868
PubMed Link to Article
Califf  RMPieper  KSLee  KL  et al.  Prediction of 1-year survival after thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction in the global utilization of streptokinase and TPA for occluded coronary arteries trial. Circulation 2000;101 (19) 2231- 2238
PubMed Link to Article
Morrow  DAAntman  EMGiugliano  RP  et al.  A simple risk index for rapid initial triage of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an InTIME II substudy. Lancet 2001;358 (9293) 1571- 1575
PubMed Link to Article
Wiviott  SDMorrow  DAFrederick  PDAntman  EMBraunwald  ENational Registry of Myocardial Infarction, Application of the Thrombolysis in Myoc ardial Infarction risk index in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: evaluation of patients in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47 (8) 1553- 1558
PubMed Link to Article
Bach  RGCannon  CPWeintraub  WS  et al.  The effect of routine, early invasive management on outcome for elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Ann Intern Med 2004;141 (3) 186- 195
PubMed Link to Article
Braunwald  EAntman  EMBeasley  JW  et al. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina), ACC/AHA guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction—2002: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina). Circulation 2002;106 (14) 1893- 1900
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Box plots of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) (A), Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin (PURSUIT) (B), and Global Registry of Acute Cardiac Events (GRACE) (C) risk scores by patient risk categories according to the treating physician. Horizontal bars indicate median; bottom and top edges of boxes, 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively; top and bottom whiskers, smallest and largest values that are not outliers, respectively; and circles outside the whiskers, outliers (1.5 to 3 box lengths from the edge of the box).

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Administration of Antiplatelet and Antithrombotic Therapies Within 24 Hours of Admission and Medication Use at Discharge
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Independent Predictors of High Risk Category According to the Treating Physician
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. In-Hospital Use of Invasive Cardiac Proceduresa
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics by Patient Risk Categories (as Estimated by the Treating Physicians)

References

Anderson  JLAdams  CDAntman  EM  et al.  ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction): developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons: endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Circulation 2007;116 (7) e148- e304
PubMed Link to Article
Bassand  JPHamm  CWArdissino  D  et al. Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes of the European Society of Cardiology, Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2007;28 (13) 1598- 1660
PubMed Link to Article
Spertus  JAWeiss  NSEvery  NRWeaver  WDMyocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Project Investigators, The influence of clinical risk factors on the use of angiography and revascularization after acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 1995;155 (21) 2309- 2316
PubMed Link to Article
Bhatt  DLRoe  MTPeterson  ED  et al. CRUSADE Investigators, Utilization of early invasive management strategies for high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative. JAMA 2004;292 (17) 2096- 2104
PubMed Link to Article
Roe  MTPeterson  EDNewby  LK  et al.  The influence of risk status on guideline adherence for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J 2006;151 (6) 1205- 1213
PubMed Link to Article
Fox  KAAnderson  FA  JrDabbous  OH  et al. GRACE investigators, Intervention in acute coronary syndromes: do patients undergo intervention on the basis of their risk characteristics? the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). Heart 2007;93 (2) 177- 182
PubMed Link to Article
Yan  ATYan  RTTan  M  et al. Canadian Acute Coronary Syndromes 1 and 2 Registry Investigators, Management patterns in relation to risk stratification among patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes. Arch Intern Med 2007;167 (10) 1009- 1016
PubMed Link to Article
Spertus  JAFurman  MI Translating evidence into practice: are we neglecting the neediest? Arch Intern Med 2007;167 (10) 987- 988
PubMed Link to Article
Ohman  EMGranger  CBHarrington  RALee  KL Risk stratification and therapeutic decision making in acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 2000;284 (7) 876- 878
PubMed Link to Article
Weintraub  WS Prediction scores after myocardial infarction: value, limitations, and future directions. Circulation 2002;106 (18) 2292- 2293
PubMed Link to Article
Wong  CKWhite  HD Value of community-derived risk models for stratifying patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2005;26 (9) 851- 852
PubMed Link to Article
Yan  ATYan  RTTan  M  et al.  Risk scores for risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes: useful but simpler is not necessarily better. Eur Heart J 2007;28 (9) 1072- 1078
PubMed Link to Article
Manfrini  OBugiardini  R Barriers to clinical risk scores adoption. Eur Heart J 2007;28 (9) 1045- 1046
PubMed Link to Article
Lee  CHTan  MYan  AT  et al. Canadian Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS) Registry II Investigators, Use of cardiac catheterization for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes according to initial risk: reasons why physicians choose not to refer their patients. Arch Intern Med 2008;168 (3) 291- 296
PubMed Link to Article
Yan  ATTan  MFitchett  D  et al. Canadian Acute Coronary Syndromes Registry Investigators, One-year outcome of patients after acute coronary syndromes (from the Canadian Acute Coronary Syndromes Registry). Am J Cardiol 2004;94 (1) 25- 29
PubMed Link to Article
Fitchett  DGoodman  SGGupta  MLanger  A Preventing thrombosis: update of first-line therapy in the management of non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Can J Cardiol 2002;18 (11) 1179- 1190
PubMed
Boersma  EPieper  KSSteyerberg  EW  et al. PURSUIT Investigators, Predictors of outcome in patients with acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST-segment elevation: results from an international trial of 9461 patients. Circulation 2000;101 (22) 2557- 2567
PubMed Link to Article
Antman  EMCohen  MBernink  PJ  et al.  The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: a method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making. JAMA 2000;284 (7) 835- 842
PubMed Link to Article
Granger  CBGoldberg  RJDabbous  O  et al. Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events Investigators, Predictors of hospital mortality in the global registry of acute coronary events. Arch Intern Med 2003;163 (19) 2345- 2353
PubMed Link to Article
Scirica  BMCannon  CPAntman  EM  et al.  Validation of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) risk score for unstable angina pectoris and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the TIMI III registry. Am J Cardiol 2002;90 (3) 303- 305
PubMed Link to Article
Morrow  DAAntman  EMSnapinn  SM McCabe  CHTheroux  PBraunwald  E An integrated clinical approach to predicting the benefit of tirofiban in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: application of the TIMI Risk Score for UA/NSTEMI in PRISM-PLUS. Eur Heart J 2002;23 (3) 223- 229
PubMed Link to Article
Alexander  KPNewby  LKCannon  CP  et al.  Acute coronary care in the elderly, part I: Non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology: in collaboration with the Society of Geriatric Cardiology. Circulation 2007;115 (19) 2549- 2569
PubMed Link to Article
Fitzmaurice  GMLaird  NMWare  JH  Applied Longitudinal Analysis.   Hoboken, NJ Wiley-Interscience2004;
Brilakis  ESWright  RSKopecky  SL  et al.  Association of the PURSUIT risk score with predischarge ejection fraction, angiographic severity of coronary artery disease, and mortality in a nonselected, community-based population with non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 2003;146 (5) 811- 818
PubMed Link to Article
de Araújo Gonçalves  PFerreira  JAguiar  CSeabra-Gomes  R TIMI, PURSUIT, and GRACE risk scores: sustained prognostic value and interaction with revascularization in NSTE-ACS. Eur Heart J 2005;26 (9) 865- 872
PubMed Link to Article
Alter  DAVenkatesh  VChong  A Evaluating the performance of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk-adjustment index across socioeconomic strata among patients discharged from the hospital after acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 2006;151 (2) 323- 331
PubMed Link to Article
Yan  ATJong  PYan  RT  et al. Canadian Acute Coronary Syndromes Registry Investigators, Clinical trial–derived risk model may not generalize to real-world patients with acute coronary syndrome. Am Heart J 2004;148 (6) 1020- 1027
PubMed Link to Article
Tang  EWWong  CKHerbison  P Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) hospital discharge risk score accurately predicts long-term mortality post acute coronary syndrome. Am Heart J 2007;153 (1) 29- 35
PubMed Link to Article
Fox  KADabbous  OHGoldberg  RJ  et al.  Prediction of risk of death and myocardial infarction in the six months after presentation with acute coronary syndrome: prospective multinational observational study (GRACE). BMJ 2006;333 (7578) 1091
PubMed Link to Article
Eagle  KALim  MJDabbous  OH  et al. GRACE Investigators, A validated prediction model for all forms of acute coronary syndrome: estimating the risk of 6-month postdischarge death in an international registry. JAMA 2004;291 (22) 2727- 2733
PubMed Link to Article
Armstrong  PWFu  YChang  WC  et al. GUSTO-IIb Investigators, Acute coronary syndromes in the GUSTO-IIb trial: prognostic insights and impact of recurrent ischemia. Circulation 1998;98 (18) 1860- 1868
PubMed Link to Article
Califf  RMPieper  KSLee  KL  et al.  Prediction of 1-year survival after thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction in the global utilization of streptokinase and TPA for occluded coronary arteries trial. Circulation 2000;101 (19) 2231- 2238
PubMed Link to Article
Morrow  DAAntman  EMGiugliano  RP  et al.  A simple risk index for rapid initial triage of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an InTIME II substudy. Lancet 2001;358 (9293) 1571- 1575
PubMed Link to Article
Wiviott  SDMorrow  DAFrederick  PDAntman  EMBraunwald  ENational Registry of Myocardial Infarction, Application of the Thrombolysis in Myoc ardial Infarction risk index in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: evaluation of patients in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47 (8) 1553- 1558
PubMed Link to Article
Bach  RGCannon  CPWeintraub  WS  et al.  The effect of routine, early invasive management on outcome for elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Ann Intern Med 2004;141 (3) 186- 195
PubMed Link to Article
Braunwald  EAntman  EMBeasley  JW  et al. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina), ACC/AHA guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction—2002: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina). Circulation 2002;106 (14) 1893- 1900
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 55

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination
Evidence Summary and Review 2

The Rational Clinical Examination
Multivariate Findings for ACI Syndromes