Acute Clopidogrel Use and Outcomes in Patients With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

OBJECTIVES We sought to characterize patterns of clopidogrel use before coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and examine the drug's impact on risks for postoperative transfusions among patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS). BACKGROUND Adherence in community practice to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for clopidogrel use among NSTE ACS patients has not been previously characterized. METHODS We evaluated 2,858 NSTE ACS patients undergoing CABG at 264 hospitals participating in the CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines) Initiative. We examined the patterns of acute clopidogrel therapy and its association with bleeding risks among those having early CABG ≤5 days and again among those having late surgery >5 days after catheterization. RESULTS Within 24 h of admission, 852 patients (30%) received clopidogrel. In contrast to national guidelines, 87% of clopidogrel-treated patients underwent CABG ≤5 days after treatment. Among those receiving CABG within ≤5 days of last treatment, the use of clopidogrel was associated with a significant increase in blood transfusions (65.0% vs. 56.9%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 1.68) as well as the need for transfusion of ≥4 U of blood (27.7% vs. 18.4%, OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.19). In contrast, acute clopidogrel therapy was not associated with higher bleeding risks if CABG was delayed >5 days (adjusted OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.58). CONCLUSIONS Despite guideline recommendations, the overwhelming majority of NSTE ACS patients treated with acute clopidogrel needing CABG have their surgery within ≤5 days of treatment. A failure to delay surgery is associated with increased blood transfusion requirements that must be weighed against the potential clinical and economic impacts of such delays

Paradoxical use of invasive cardiac procedures for patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: An international perspective from the CRUSADE Initiative and the Canadian ACS Registries I and II

Practice guidelines support an early invasive strategy in patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, particularly in those at higher risk

Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes

Context Selected care processes are increasingly being used to measure hospital quality; however, data regarding the association between hospital process performance and outcomes are limited. Objectives To evaluate contemporary care practices consistent with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline recommendations, to examine how hospital performance varied among centers, to identify characteristics predictive of higher guideline adherence, and to assess whether hospitals' overall composite guideline adherence was associated with observed and risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates. Design, Setting, and Participants An observational analysis of hospital care in 350 academic and nonacademic US centers of 64 775 patients enrolled in the CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines) National Quality Improvement Initiative between January 1, 2001, and September 30, 2003, presenting with chest pain and positive electrocardiographic changes or cardiac biomarkers consistent with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Main Outcome Measures Use of 9 ACC/AHA class I guideline-recommended treatments and the correlation among hospitals' use of individual care processes as well as overall composite adherence rates. Results Overall, the 9 ACC/AHA guideline-recommended treatments were adhered to in 74% of eligible instances. There was modest correlation in hospital performance among the individual ACS process metrics. However, composite adherence performance varied widely (median [interquartile range] composite adherence scores from lowest to highest hospital quartiles, 63% [59%-66%] vs 82% [80%-84%]). Composite guideline adherence rate was significantly associated with in-hospital mortality, with observed mortality rates decreasing from 6.31% for the lowest adherence quartile to 4.15% for the highest adherence quartile (P less than .001). After risk adjustment, every 10% increase in composite adherence at a hospital was associated with an analogous 10% decrease in its patients' likelihood of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.97; P less than .001). Conclusion A significant association between care process and outcomes was found, supporting the use of broad, guideline-based performance metrics as a means of assessing and helping improve hospital quality

Clinical characteristics, process of care, and outcomes of Hispanic patients presenting with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: Results from Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE)

Data regarding the management of non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS) in Hispanic patients, the largest and fastest-growing minority in the United States, are scarce. We sought to describe the clinical characteristics, process of care, and outcomes of Hispanics presenting with NSTE ACS at US hospitals. We compared baseline characteristics, resource use, and inhospital mortality among 3936 Hispanics and 90 280 non-Hispanic whites with NSTE ACS from the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative. The regional distribution of Hispanics in CRUSADE paralleled that in the US Census. Hispanics were younger (65 vs 70 years, P < .0001) and had less hyperlipidemia (45.4% vs 49.0%, P < .0001) but were more likely to be hypertensive (72.2% vs 67.9%, P < .0001) and diabetic (46.5% vs 30.9%, P < .0001). Hispanics were also more likely to be uninsured (12.5% vs 5.1%, P < .001). During hospitalization, Hispanics were more often managed conservatively, undergoing stress tests more frequently (13.0% vs 10.1%, P < .0001), with less use of cardiac catheterization within 48 hours (48.7% vs 55.5%, P < .0001) or percutaneous coronary intervention (39.6% vs 46.4%, P < .0001) at any time. Hispanics received similar discharge treatments but were less frequently referred for cardiac rehabilitation (38.5% vs 49.2%, P < .0001). Adjusted inhospital mortality was similar in both groups (odds ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.72-1.05). Although hispanics have a different risk factor profile and are treated less aggressively during hospitalization when they present with NSTE ACS, these treatment differences do not appear to affect inhospital outcomes. Further research is warranted to explore the long-term consequences of these findings