Intervention in acute coronary syndromes: do patients undergo intervention on the basis of their risk characteristics? The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE)
Top Cited Papers
- 30 December 2005
- Vol. 93 (2) , 177-182
- https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2005.084830
Abstract
To determine whether revascularisation is more likely to be performed in higher-risk patients and whether the findings are influenced by hospitals adopting more or less aggressive revascularisation strategies. GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) is a multinational, observational cohort study. This study involved 24,189 patients enrolled at 73 hospitals with on-site angiographic facilities. Overall, 32.5% of patients with a non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; 53.7% in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)) and 7.2% underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG; 4.0% in STEMI). The cumulative rate of in-hospital death rose correspondingly with the GRACE risk score (variables: age, Killip class, systolic blood pressure, ST segment deviation, cardiac arrest at admission, serum creatinine, raised cardiac markers, heart rate), from 1.2% in low-risk to 3.3% in medium-risk and 13.0% in high-risk patients (c statistic = 0.83). PCI procedures were more likely to be performed in low- (40% non-STEMI, 60% STEMI) than medium- (35%, 54%) or high-risk patients (25%, 41%). No such gradient was apparent for patients undergoing CABG. These findings were seen in STEMI and non-ST elevation ACS, in all geographical regions and irrespective of whether hospitals adopted low (4.2-33.7%, n = 7210 observations), medium (35.7-51.4%, n = 7913 observations) or high rates (52.6-77.0%, n = 8942 observations) of intervention. A risk-averse strategy to angiography appears to be widely adopted. Proceeding to PCI relates to referral practice and angiographic findings rather than the patient's risk status. Systematic and accurate risk stratification may allow higher-risk patients to be selected for revascularisation procedures, in contrast to current international practice.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Early Invasive versus Selectively Invasive Management for Acute Coronary SyndromesNew England Journal of Medicine, 2005
- 5-year outcome of an interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trialThe Lancet, 2005
- Routine vs Selective Invasive Strategies in Patients With Acute Coronary SyndromesJAMA, 2005
- Management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevationEuropean Heart Journal, 2002
- ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction—summary articleJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2002
- Interventional versus conservative treatment for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trialPublished by Elsevier ,2002
- Baseline characteristics, management practices, and in-hospital outcomes of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes in the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) *Published by Elsevier ,2002
- Practice variation and missed opportunities for reperfusion in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE)The Lancet, 2002
- Comparison of Early Invasive and Conservative Strategies in Patients with Unstable Coronary Syndromes Treated with the Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor TirofibanNew England Journal of Medicine, 2001
- Rationale and design of the GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) Project: A multinational registry of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromesAmerican Heart Journal, 2001