Use of cardiac catheterization for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes according to initial risk: reasons why physicians choose not to refer their patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recommendation for an early invasive strategy in the treatment of patients who present with non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndromes (ACS), referral for cardiac catheterization is suboptimal; the reasons why some patients are not referred remain unclear. METHODS: Patients were recruited into the prospective, observational Canadian ACS Registry II between October 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003; 2136 patients with NSTE ACS identified through the registry were divided into tertiles according to the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score and the rates of catheterization compared. In addition, the most responsible physicians were asked to indicate the main reason they did not refer their patients for catheterization. RESULTS: The rate of referral for catheterization was 64.7%. Patients who underwent catheterization had lower in-hospital (0.8% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and 1-year mortality rates (4.0% vs 10.9%; P < .001) compared with those who did not. Higher-risk patients were referred at a similar rate as low-risk patients (62.5% vs 66.9%; P = .25). Among the reasons provided by the most responsible physician as to why patients were not referred for catheterization, 68.4% of patients were thought to be "not at high enough risk"; however, 59.1% of these patients were found to be at intermediate to high risk according to their baseline Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac catheterization is not used optimally in patients who present with NSTE ACS. Despite better in-hospital and 1-year outcomes in those patients who are referred for catheterization, many higher-risk patients are not being referred because of the perception that they are not at high enough risk. A significant opportunity remains to improve on accurate risk stratification and adherence to an early invasive strategy for higher-risk patients.

Supporting a call to action for peripheral artery disease: insights from two prospective clinical registries.

BACKGROUND: Patients affected by peripheral arterial disease (PAD) incur a heightened risk of adverse cardiovascular events, including stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular mortality. We examined risk factors, medications, and prognosis of outpatients with PAD enrolled in two national, prospective, practice-based Canadian registries that encompassed 484 physician practices: the Vascular Protection and Guideline Oriented Approach in Lipid Lowering registries. METHODS: The 2 registries were combined to analyze 9810 patients with vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or age 65 years or older plus at least 2 additional cardiovascular risk factors. Risk factors, medications, and major cardiovascular events were recorded at baseline and again at 6 months' follow-up. RESULTS: Compared with patients without PAD (n = 8303), those with PAD (n = 1507) had substantially worse risk factor profiles and were more likely to have coexisting coronary or cerebrovascular disease. Both groups received high rates of treatment with evidence-based therapies, including antiplatelet drugs, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Despite this, patients with PAD had a nearly twofold higher risk of major cardiovascular events at 6 months than non-PAD patients (7.3% vs 4.1%; P < .0001). After adjustment for multiple confounding factors, the presence of PAD at baseline continued to predict a heightened risk of adverse vascular sequelae (odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.01; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: These data support a strong relationship between PAD and worsened vascular prognosis that is independent of both conventional vascular risk factors and concomitant cardiovascular disease. The presence of PAD should therefore provide a clear impetus for intensive risk factor modification and use of preventive medical therapy in affected patients.