Impacto del tipo de hospital en el tratamiento y evolución de los pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo sin elevación del ST / Influence of hospital type on treatment and prognosis in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome

Introducción y objetivos. Las guías de práctica clínica del síndrome coronario agudo sin elevación del ST (SCASEST) no valoran la infraestructura hospitalaria y la facilidad de acceso a la sala de hemodinámica. Este estudio analiza la influencia del tipo de hospital, con o sin sala de hemodinámica, en la forma de tratamiento de pacientes con SCASEST y su posible impacto en el pronóstico a medio plazo. Métodos. El GYSCA es un registro multicéntrico (15 hospitales) que analiza la aplicación de las guías en pacientes con SCASEST: 6 con sala de hemodinámica (hospitales centrales) y 9 sin hemodinámica (hospitales comarcales). Se realizó seguimiento clínico al alta y a los 3 y a los 12 meses. Resultados. Se reclutó a 1.133 pacientes consecutivos; 599 (52,9%) en hospitales centrales y 534 (47,1%) en hospitales comarcales. El uso de intervenciones de clase I fue mayor en los centrales (aspirina, clopidogrel, bloqueadores beta, IECA y estatinas; p < 0,01) y se revascularizó a más pacientes durante la hospitalización (el 43 frente al 30%; p < 0,01). El número de pacientes de hospitales comarcales que reingresaron por SCASEST al año fue 5 veces mayor que en los centrales (el 12,8 frente al 2,3%; p < 0,01), y el tipo de hospital fue uno de los predictores de eventos. Conclusiones. Los pacientes que ingresan por SCASEST en hospitales que no disponen de sala de hemodinámica son tratados de forma menos invasiva y con un tratamiento farmacológico menos ajustado a lo recomendado en las guías. Junto con los conocidos factores predictivos del pronóstico, el tipo de hospital puede tener un impacto adicional en la evolución (AU)

Introduction and objectives. Clinical practice guidelines on non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) do not take either hospital infrastructure or the availability of a catheterization laboratory into account. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of hospital type, either with or without a catheterization laboratory, on treatment and medium-term prognosis in patients with NSTEACS. Methods. The GYSCA multicenter study (covering 15 hospitals) investigated the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in patients with NSTEACS at six hospitals with catheterization laboratories (i.e. tertiary-care hospitals; THs) and nine without (i.e. secondary-care hospitals; SHs). Patients were assessed clinically at hospital discharge and after 3 and 12 months. Results. In total, 1133 consecutive patients were recruited: 599 (52.9%) in THs and 534 (47.1%) in SHs. The use of specific class-I interventions (i.e. aspirin, clopidogrel, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and statins) was more common in THs (P < .01) and more patients in THs underwent revascularization while in hospital (43% vs. 30%; P < .01). The number of SH patients who were readmitted for NSTEACS at 1 year was 5-fold greater than the number of TH patients (12.8% vs. 2.3%; P < .01), and hospital type was a predictor of an adverse event. Conclusions. Patients admitted for NSTEACS to a hospital without a catheterization laboratory were managed less invasively and their drug treatment was less likely to have been modified to match guideline recommendations. In addition to other well-known prognostic factors, hospital type can also have an influence on patient outcomes (AU)

[Influence of hospital type on treatment and prognosis in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome]. / Impacto del tipo de hospital en el tratamiento y evolución de los pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo sin elevación del ST.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines on non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) do not take either hospital infrastructure or the availability of a catheterization laboratory into account. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of hospital type, either with or without a catheterization laboratory, on treatment and medium-term prognosis in patients with NSTEACS. METHODS: The GYSCA multicenter study (covering 15 hospitals) investigated the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in patients with NSTEACS at six hospitals with catheterization laboratories (i.e. tertiary-care hospitals; THs) and nine without (i.e. secondary-care hospitals; SHs). Patients were assessed clinically at hospital discharge and after 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 1133 consecutive patients were recruited: 599 (52.9%) in THs and 534 (47.1%) in SHs. The use of specific class-I interventions (i.e. aspirin, clopidogrel, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and statins) was more common in THs (P< .01) and more patients in THs underwent revascularization while in hospital (43% vs. 30%; P< .01). The number of SH patients who were readmitted for NSTEACS at 1 year was 5-fold greater than the number of TH patients (12.8% vs. 2.3%; P< .01), and hospital type was a predictor of an adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Patients admitted for NSTEACS to a hospital without a catheterization laboratory were managed less invasively and their drug treatment was less likely to have been modified to match guideline recommendations. In addition to other well-known prognostic factors, hospital type can also have an influence on patient outcomes.