Elsevier

American Heart Journal

Volume 154, Issue 6, December 2007, Pages 1108-1115
American Heart Journal

Clinical Investigations
Acute Ischemic Heart Disease
Optimal medical therapy at discharge in patients with acute coronary syndromes: Temporal changes, characteristics, and 1-year outcome

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2007.07.040Get rights and content

Background

There are limited data on the recent trend in the use of optimal evidence-based medical therapies after acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). We sought to evaluate (1) the temporal changes in medical management of patients discharged after an ACS; (2) patient and practice characteristics associated with optimal medical therapy at discharge; and (3) the association between discharge medication use and 1-year outcome.

Methods

The Canadian ACS I (September 1999-June 2001) and ACS II (October 2002-December 2003) Registries were prospective, multicenter, observational studies of 6853 patients admitted for ACS. We examined the discharge use of medications among 5833 hospital survivors who did not have any contraindications to antiplatelet/anticoagulant, β-blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, or lipid-modifying therapies. Optimal medical therapy was defined as the use of all indicated medications. Follow-up data at 1 year were collected by telephone interview. We performed hierarchical logistic regression to identify patient characteristics and care patterns associated with optimal medical treatment and to examine its relationship with 1-year mortality.

Results

There were significant increases in the discharge use of all 4 classes of medications over time; 28.9% and 51.8% of patients in ACS I and ACS II Registries, respectively, were prescribed optimal medical therapy (P < .001). Advanced age, female sex, prior heart failure, renal dysfunction, and coronary bypass surgery during hospitalization were negative independent predictors of optimal medical therapy. Conversely, enrollment in ACS II Registry, history of dyslipidemia, presence of ST elevation and abnormal cardiac biomarker, previous myocardial infarction, and previous coronary revascularization were independently associated with the use of combination therapy. After adjusting for other validated prognosticators, patients receiving optimal medical therapy had significantly lower 1-year mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.36-0.81, P = .003) compared with those given 0 or 1 drug at discharge. Over the 1-year follow-up period, substantial numbers of patients discontinued therapies, whereas others were initiated on treatment.

Conclusions

Despite the temporal increases in the combined use of evidence-based pharmacologic therapies, which is associated with improved outcome, medical management of ACS remains suboptimal. Quality improvement strategies are needed to enhance the appropriate use of effective therapies, targeting specifically the high-risk but undertreated patients who may derive the greatest therapeutic benefit.

Section snippets

Study design and patient population

Details of the Canadian ACS Registry have been published.17 In brief, the Canadian ACS I and ACS II Registries were prospective, multicenter, observational studies of management practices and outcomes of ACS in Canada. Eligible patients were (1) ≥18 years old on presentation; (2) admitted to hospital with a presumptive diagnosis of ACS (symptoms of acute cardiac ischemia within 24 hours of onset); and (3) with qualifying ACS not precipitated by a serious concurrent illness such as trauma. To

Results

Of the 5833 patients with ACS in the present study, 372 (6.4%), 3370 (57.8%), and 2091 (35.6%) patients were discharged on 0 or 1 drug, 2 or 3 drugs, and optimal medical therapy, respectively. Tables I and II summarize the baseline characteristics and inhospital management patterns, respectively, of the overall study patients.

Figure 1 depicts the discharge prescription rates in ACS I and ACS II Registries. The results of multivariable analysis for optimal medication use at discharge are

Discussion

In this Canadian prospective observational study of a wide spectrum of ACS, we found substantial temporal increases in the use of evidence-based therapies at discharge and at 1-year follow-up. Importantly, the use of optimal medical therapy at discharge was independently associated with improved survival. Nevertheless, this combination therapy was only prescribed in a minority of eligible patients. Furthermore, its use was paradoxically less common among high-risk patients.

Although randomized

Conclusion

In conclusion, despite the temporal increases in the combined use of evidence-based pharmacologic therapies, which is associated with improved outcome, medical management of ACS remains suboptimal outside of randomized controlled trials in the real world. Our findings underscore an important opportunity for quality improvement strategies to promote more widespread use of proven therapies across the broad spectrum of ACS, targeting in particular the high-risk patients who may derive the most

References (34)

Cited by (134)

  • Trends in optimal medical therapy at discharge and clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome in Thailand

    2021, Journal of Cardiology
    Citation Excerpt :

    In addition, it is possible the rate of OMT at discharge was underestimated because data concerning OMT contraindication or drug intolerance were not collected. However, this bias is likely to have existed in previous studies as well [13, 14, 17, 19]. We do not know whether the patients took the prescribed drugs, as many patients had multiple comorbidities, and these medications are known to be associated with poor drug compliance.

View all citing articles on Scopus

The Canadian ACS Registries were sponsored by the Canadian Heart Research Centre (a federally incorporated not-for-profit academic research organization) and Key Pharmaceuticals, Division of Schering Canada Inc (ACS I), Pfizer Canada Inc (ACS II), Sanofi Aventis Canada Inc (ACS II), and Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Inc (ACS II). The industrial sponsors had no involvement in the study conception or design; in the 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.

View full text