Early clopidogrel versus prasugrel use among contemporary STEMI and NSTEMI patients in the US: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

BACKGROUND: P2Y12 antagonist therapy improves outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients. Novel agents in this class are now available in the US. We studied the introduction of prasugrel into contemporary MI practice to understand the appropriateness of its use and assess for changes in antiplatelet management practices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using ACTION Registry-GWTG (Get-with-the-Guidelines), we evaluated patterns of P2Y12 antagonist use within 24 hours of admission in 100 228 ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 158 492 Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients at 548 hospitals between October 2009 and September 2012. Rates of early P2Y12 antagonist use were approximately 90% among STEMI and 57% among NSTEMI patients. From 2009 to 2012, prasugrel use increased significantly from 3% to 18% (5% to 30% in STEMI; 2% to 10% in NSTEMI; P for trend <0.001 for all). During the same period, we observed a decrease in use of early but not discharge P2Y12 antagonist among NSTEMI patients. Although contraindicated, 3.0% of patients with prior stroke received prasugrel. Prasugrel was used in 1.9% of patients ≥75 years and 4.5% of patients with weight <60 kg. In both STEMI and NSTEMI, prasugrel was most frequently used in patients at the lowest predicted risk for bleeding and mortality. Despite lack of supporting evidence, prasugrel was initiated before cardiac catheterization in 18% of NSTEMI patients. CONCLUSIONS: With prasugrel as an antiplatelet treatment option, contemporary practice shows low uptake of prasugrel and delays in P2Y12 antagonist initiation among NSTEMI patients. We also note concerning evidence of inappropriate use of prasugrel, and inadequate targeting of this more potent therapy to maximize the benefit/risk ratio.

Validation of ICDPIC software injury severity scores using a large regional trauma registry.

BACKGROUND: Administrative or quality improvement registries may or may not contain the elements needed for investigations by trauma researchers. International Classification of Diseases Program for Injury Categorisation (ICDPIC), a statistical program available through Stata, is a powerful tool that can extract injury severity scores from ICD-9-CM codes. We conducted a validation study for use of the ICDPIC in trauma research. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort validation study of 40,418 patients with injury using a large regional trauma registry. ICDPIC-generated AIS scores for each body region were compared with trauma registry AIS scores (gold standard) in adult and paediatric populations. A separate analysis was conducted among patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) comparing the ICDPIC tool with ICD-9-CM embedded severity codes. Performance in characterising overall injury severity, by the ISS, was also assessed. RESULTS: The ICDPIC tool generated substantial correlations in thoracic and abdominal trauma (weighted κ 0.87-0.92), and in head and neck trauma (weighted κ 0.76-0.83). The ICDPIC tool captured TBI severity better than ICD-9-CM code embedded severity and offered the advantage of generating a severity value for every patient (rather than having missing data). Its ability to produce an accurate severity score was consistent within each body region as well as overall. CONCLUSIONS: The ICDPIC tool performs well in classifying injury severity and is superior to ICD-9-CM embedded severity for TBI. Use of ICDPIC demonstrates substantial efficiency and may be a preferred tool in determining injury severity for large trauma datasets, provided researchers understand its limitations and take caution when examining smaller trauma datasets.