The additional value of patient-reported health status in predicting 1-year mortality after invasive coronary procedures: A report from the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularisation

Objective: Self-perceived health status may be helpful in identifying patients at high risk for adverse outcomes. The Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization (EHS-CR) provided an opportunity to explore whether impaired health status was a predictor of 1-year mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing angiographic procedures. Methods: Data from the EHS-CR that included 5619 patients from 31 member countries of the European Society of Cardiology were used. Inclusion criteria for the current study were completion of a self-report measure of health status, the EuroQol Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at discharge and information on 1-year follow-up, resulting in a study population of 3786 patients. Results: The 1-year mortality was 3.2% (n = 120). Survivors reported fewer problems on the five dimensions of the EQ-5D as compared with non-survivors. A broad range of potential confounders were adjusted for, which reached a p<0.10 in the unadjusted analyses. In the adjusted analyses, problems with self-care (OR 3.45; 95% CI 2.14 to 5.59) and a low rating (≤ 60) on health status (OR 2.41; 95% CI 1.47 to 3.94) were the most powerful independent predictors of mortality, among the 22 clinical variables included in the analysis. Furthermore, patients who reported no problems on all five dimensions had significantly lower 1-year mortality rates (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.81). Conclusions: This analysis shows that impaired health status is associated with a 2-3-fold increased risk of all-cause mortality in patients with CAD, independent of other conventional risk factors. These results highlight the importance of including patients' subjective experience of their own health status in the evaluation strategy to optimise risk stratification and management in clinical practice

GLYCOPROTEIN IIIA GENE (PIA) POLYMORPHISM AND ASPIRIN RESISTANCE: A CASE CONTROL STUDY

WOS: 000207610700120

ASPIRIN RESISTANCE IS A RISK FACTOR FOR NON-FATAL CORONARY EVENTS AFTER PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTIONS

WOS: 000207610700011

Patients enrolled in coronary intervention trials are not representative of patients in clinical practice: Results from the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization

Aims: Revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease changed over the last two decades, favouring the number of patients treated by means of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) when compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed to compare these two competing revascularization techniques. Because of the strict enrolment criteria of RCTs in which highly selected patients are recruited, the applicability of the results may be limited in clinical practice. The current study evaluates to what extent patients in clinical practice were similar to those who participated in RCTs comparing PCI with CABG. Methods and results: Clinical characteristics and 1-year outcome of 4713 patients enrolled in the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization were compared with 8647 patients who participated in 14 major RCTs, comparing PCI with CABG. In addition, we analysed which proportion of survey patients would have disqualified for trial participation (n = 3033, 64%), aiming at identifying differences between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible survey patients. In general, important differences were observed between trial participants and survey patients. Patients in clinical practice were older, more often had comorbid conditions, single-vessel disease, and left main stem stenosis when compared with trial participants. Almost identical differences were observed between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible survey patients. In clinical practice, PCI was the treatment of choice, even in patients who were trial-ineligible (46% PCI, 26% CABG, 28% medical). PCI remained the preferred treatment option in patients with multi-vessel disease (57% in trial-eligible and 40% in trial-ineligible patients, respectively, P < 0.001); yet, the risk profile of patients treated by PCI was better than that for patients treated either by CABG or by medical therapy. In the RCTs, there was no mortality difference between PCI and CABG. In clinical practice, however, we observed 1-year unadjusted survival benefit for PCI vs. CABG (2.9 vs. 5.4%, P < 0.001). Survival benefit was only observed in trial-ineligible patients (3.3 vs. 6.2%, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Many patients in clinical practice were not represented in RCTs. Moreover, only 36% of these patients were considered eligible for participating in a trial comparing PCI with CABG. We demonstrated that RCTs included younger patients with a better cardiovascular risk profile when compared with patients in everyday clinical practice. This study highlights the disparity between patients in clinical practice and patients in whom the studies that provide the evidence for treatment guidelines are performed. © The European Society of Cardiology 2006. All rights reserved

Interventional treatment in diabetics in the era of drugeluting stents and compliance to the ESC guidelines: Lessons learned from the Euro Heart Survey Programme

Aims: The objective of the study is to determine the demographics and the in-hospital outcome of diabetic and non-diabetic patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in Europe, to report the type of equipment and technology used for PCI procedures in diabetics and to clarify whether the treatment of diabetic patients complies with current European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. Methods and results: A total of 14,458 patients treated with PCI were enrolled from 29 member countries of the ESC between June 2005 and January 2006. Data were collected on patient characteristics and treatment, using new Cardiology Audit and Registration Data standards. In total, 3,603 patients (24.9%) were diabetic. Diabetics were older, more often female and had a higher body mass index than non-diabetics. Diabetics had higher rates of hypercholesterolaemia and hypertension, while current smokers were more frequent in the non-diabetics. Diabetics also had significantly higher rates of previous cardiovascular events. Clopidogrel was administered only in 48.1% of diabetic patients before PCI, while IIb/IIIa inhibitors were 22.9% during PCI. At discharge, there was a major adjustment of treatment with increases in the use of Beta-blocker (80.4%), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI, 71.3%) and statins (89.8%) compared with on admission (Beta-blocker 60.9%, ACEI 55.0%, statin 63.1%). Inhospital mortality was higher in diabetics (1.8% vs 1.2%) although the in-hospital MACCE rate was not significantly different (3.6% vs 3.0%, p=0.09). Conclusions: Diabetic patients treated with PCI were older with more comorbidity. According to ESC guideline, the under-usage of clopidogrel, GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors should be improved. PCI is now taken as a good opportunity to adjust the use of appropriate medication. © Europa Edition. All rights reserved

Management of dyslipidaemia in patients with coronary heart disease: Results from the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey in 27 countries

WOS: 000468732700018PubMed ID: 31054483Background and aims: One of the objectives of the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey is to determine how well European guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are implemented in coronary patients. Methods: Standardized methods were used by trained technicians to collect information on 7824 patients from 130 centers in 27 countries, from the medical records and at a visit at least 6 months after hospitalization for a coronary event. All lipid measurements were performed in one central laboratory. Patients were divided into three groups: on high-intensity LDL-C-lowering-drug therapy (LLT), on low or moderate-intensity LLT and on no LLT. Results: At the time of the visit, almost half of the patients were on a high-intensity LLT. Between hospital discharge and the visit, LLT had been reduced in intensity or interrupted in 20.8% of the patients and had been started or increased in intensity in 11.7%. In those who had interrupted LLT or had reduced the intensity, intolerance to LLT and the advice of their physician were reported as the reason why in 15.8 and 36.8% of the cases, respectively. LDL-C control was better in those on a high-intensity LLT compared to those on low or moderate intensity LLT. LDL-C control was better in men than women and in patients with self-reported diabetes. Conclusions: The results of the EUROASPIRE V survey show that most coronary patients have a less than optimal management of LDL-C. More professional strategies are needed, aiming at lifestyle changes and LLT adapted to the need of the individual patient.ESC - EORP; AmgenAmgen; Eli LillyEli Lilly; PfizerPfizer; SanofiSanofi-Aventis; Ferrer; Novo NordiskNovo NordiskThe EUROASPIRE V survey was carried out under the auspices of the ESC - EORP. Since the start of EORP, the following companies have supported the programme: Amgen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer and Novo Nordisk. The sponsors of the EUROASPIRE surveys had no role in the design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, decision to publish, or writing the manuscript

Management of dyslipidaemia in patients with coronary heart disease: Results from the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey in 27 countries

Background and aims: One of the objectives of the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey is to determine how well European guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are implemented in coronary patients. Methods: Standardized methods were used by trained technicians to collect information on 7824 patients from 130 centers in 27 countries, from the medical records and at a visit at least 6 months after hospitalization for a coronary event. All lipid measurements were performed in one central laboratory. Patients were divided into three groups: on high-intensity LDL-C-lowering-drug therapy (LLT), on low or moderate-intensity LLT and on no LLT. Results: At the time of the visit, almost half of the patients were on a high-intensity LLT. Between hospital discharge and the visit, LLT had been reduced in intensity or interrupted in 20.8\% of the patients and had been started or increased in intensity in 11.7\%. In those who had interrupted LLT or had reduced the intensity, intolerance to LLT and the advice of their physician were reported as the reason why in 15.8 and 36.8\% of the cases, respectively. LDL-C control was better in those on a high-intensity LLT compared to those on low or moderate intensity LLT. LDL-C control was better in men than women and in patients with self-reported diabetes. Conclusions: The results of the EUROASPIRE V survey show that most coronary patients have a less than optimal management of LDL-C. More professional strategies are needed, aiming at lifestyle changes and LLT adapted to the need of the individual patient