Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the Netherlands: room for improvement!

Myocardial infarction care in low and high socioeconomic environments: claims data analysis

BACKGROUND

To date, claims data have not been used to study outcome differences between low and high socioeconomic status (SES) patients surviving ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in the Netherlands.

AIM

To evaluate STEMI and NSTEMI care among patients with low and high SES in the referral area of three Dutch percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centres, using claims data as a source.

METHODS

STEMI and NSTEMI patients treated in 2015-2017 were included. Patients' SES scores were collected based on their postal code via an open access government database. In patients with low (SES1) and high (SES4) status, revascularisation strategies and secondary prevention medication were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 2065 SES1 patients (age 68 ± 13 years, 58% NSTEMI) and 1639 SES4 patients (age 68 ± 13 years, 63% NSTEMI) were included. PCI use was lower in SES1 compared to SES4 in both STEMI (80% vs 84%, p < 0.012) and NSTEMI (42% vs 48%, p < 0.002) patients. Coronary artery bypass grafting was performed more often in SES1 than in SES4 in both STEMI (7% vs 4%, p = NS) and NSTEMI (11% vs 7%, p < 0.001) patients. Optimal medical therapy use in STEMI patients was higher in SES1 compared to SES4 (52% vs 46%, p = 0.01) but comparable among NSTEMI patients (39% vs 40%, p = NS). One-year mortality was comparable in SES1 and SES4 patients following STEMI (14% vs 16%, p = NS) and NSTEMI (10% vs 11%, p = NS).

CONCLUSION

Combined analysis of claims data and area-specific socioeconomic statistics can provide unique insight into how to improve myocardial infarction care for low and high SES patients.

Time to coronary catheterization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and high Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score

AIMS

Current guidelines recommend an early (<24 h) invasive coronary angiography (ICA) strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients with Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score over 140. Evidence for this recommendation is based on older trials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between 1 February 2016 and 31 July 2021, 1767 patients with a primary diagnosis of NSTE-ACS without indication for urgent ICA underwent ICA during index hospitalization. Six hundred and fifty-five patients underwent early invasive ICA (within 24 h) and 1112 underwent late ICA (between 24 h and 1 week). One hundred and seven patients had a GRACE risk score of 140 or above and 1660 had a GRACE risk score under 140. The primary composite outcome was all-cause mortality, stroke, and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI). Median time from admission to ICA was 13.3 h (IQR 6.0-20.6) for the early group and 59.9 h for the late group (IQR 23.5-96.3). There was no difference between the early and late ICA groups in the primary composite outcome [late catheterization >24 h hazard ratio 1.196, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.969-1.475, P -value 0.096]. A multivariable Cox regression model for the composite outcome revealed no difference between the early and late ICA groups (late catheterization >24 h hazard ratio 1.0735, 95% CI 0.862-1.327, P -value 0.512) with no effect for performing early ICA in patients with GRACE score over 140 (hazard ratio 1.291, 95% CI 0.910-1.831, P -value 0.151).

CONCLUSION

An early ICA strategy in patients with NSTE-ACS patients and GRACE risk score over 140, compared with late ICA, was not associated with improved composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke at 1 year.