Quality of care after acute coronary syndromes in a prospective cohort with reasons for non-prescription of recommended medications

BACKGROUND Adherence to guidelines is associated with improved outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Clinical registries developed to assess quality of care at discharge often do not collect the reasons for non-prescription for proven efficacious preventive medication in Continental Europe. In a prospective cohort of patients hospitalized for an ACS, we aimed at measuring the rate of recommended treatment at discharge, using pre-specified quality indicators recommended in cardiologic guidelines and including systematic collection of reasons for non-prescription for preventive medications. METHODS In a prospective cohort with 1260 patients hospitalized for ACS, we measured the rate of recommended treatment at discharge in 4 academic centers in Switzerland. Performance measures for medication at discharge were pre-specified according to guidelines, systematically collected for all patients and included in a centralized database. RESULTS Six hundred and eighty eight patients(54.6%) were discharged with a main diagnosis of STEMI, 491(39%) of NSTEMI and 81(6.4%) of unstable angina. Mean age was 64 years and 21.3% were women. 94.6% were prescribed angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers at discharge when only considering raw prescription rates, but increased to 99.5% when including reasons non-prescription. For statins, rates increased from 98% to 98.6% when including reasons for non-prescription and for beta-blockers, from 82% to 93%. For aspirin, rates further increased from 99.4% to 100% and from to 99.8% to 100% for P2Y12 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS We found a very high adherence to ACS guidelines for drug prescriptions at discharge when including reasons for non-prescription to drug therapy. For beta-blockers, prescription rates were suboptimal, even after taking into account reason for non-prescription. In an era of improving quality of care to achieve 100% prescription rates at discharge unless contra-indicated, pre-specification of reasons for non-prescription for cardiovascular preventive medication permits to identify remaining gaps in quality of care at discharge.

Reporting of noninferiority trials was incomplete in trial registries

Objective To examine the registration of noninferiority trials, with a focus on the reporting of study design and noninferiority margins. Study Design and Setting Cross-sectional study of registry records of noninferiority trials published from 2005 to 2009 and records of noninferiority trials in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) or ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries. The main outcome was the proportion of records that reported the noninferiority design and margin. Results We analyzed 87 registry records of published noninferiority trials and 149 registry records describing noninferiority trials. Thirty-five (40%) of 87 records from published trials described the trial as a noninferiority trial; only two (2%) reported the noninferiority margin. Reporting of the noninferiority design was more frequent in the ISRCTN registry (13 of 18 records, 72%) compared with ClinicalTrials.gov (22 of 69 records, 32%; P = 0.002). Among the 149 records identified in the registries, 13 (9%) reported the noninferiority margin. Only one of the industry-sponsored trial compared with 11 of the publicly funded trials reported the margin (P = 0.001). Conclusion Most registry records of noninferiority trials do not mention the noninferiority design and do not include the noninferiority margin. The registration of noninferiority trials is unsatisfactory and must be improved.

Drug-eluting stent and coronary thrombosis: biological mechanisms and clinical implications

Although rare, stent thrombosis remains a severe complication after stent implantation owing to its high morbidity and mortality. Since the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES), most interventional centers have noted stent thrombosis up to 3 years after implantation, a complication rarely seen with bare-metal stents. Some data from large registries and meta-analyses of randomized trials indicate a higher risk for DES thrombosis, whereas others suggest an absence of such a risk. Several factors are associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis, including the procedure itself (stent malapposition and/or underexpansion, number of implanted stents, stent length, persistent slow coronary blood flow, and dissections), patient and lesion characteristics, stent design, and premature cessation of antiplatelet drugs. Drugs released from DES exert distinct biological effects, such as activation of signal transduction pathways and inhibition of cell proliferation. As a result, although primarily aimed at preventing vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration (ie, key factors in the development of restenosis), they also impair reendothelialization, which leads to delayed arterial healing, and induce tissue factor expression, which results in a prothrombogenic environment. In the same way, polymers used to load these drugs have been associated with DES thrombosis. Finally, DES impair endothelial function of the coronary artery distal to the stent, which potentially promotes the risk of ischemia and coronary occlusion. Although several reports raise the possibility of a substantially higher risk of stent thrombosis in DES, evidence remains inconclusive; as a consequence, both large-scale and long-term clinical trials, as well as further mechanistic studies, are needed. The present review focuses on the pathophysiological mechanisms and pathological findings of stent thrombosis in DES.

Differences in coronary risk factors, procedural characteristics, mortality and stent thrombosis between two all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention registries from Europe and Japan: a patient-level data analysis of the Bern-Rotterdam and j-Cypher registries

Aims: The reported rate of stent thrombosis (ST) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation varies among registries. To investigate differences in baseline characteristics and clinical outcome in European and Japanese all-comers registries, we performed a pooled analysis of patient-level data. Methods and results: The j-Cypher registry (JC) is a multicentre observational study conducted in Japan, including 12,824 patients undergoing SES implantation. From the Bern-Rotterdam registry (BR) enrolled at two academic hospitals in Switzerland and the Netherlands, 3,823 patients with SES were included in the current analysis. Patients in BR were younger, more frequently smokers and presented more frequently with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI). Conversely, JC patients more frequently had diabetes and hypertension. At five years, the definite ST rate was significantly lower in JC than BR (JC 1.6% vs. BR 3.3%, p<0.001), while the unadjusted mortality tended to be lower in BR than in JC (BR 13.2% vs. JC 14.4%, log-rank p=0.052). After adjustment, the j-Cypher registry was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.49-0.64) as well as definite stent thrombosis (HR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35-0.61). Conclusions: The baseline characteristics of the two large registries were different. After statistical adjustment, JC was associated with lower mortality and ST.

Is a Revision a Revision? An Analysis of National Arthroplasty Registries' Definitions of Revision.

BACKGROUND The reported survival of implants depends on the definition used for the endpoint, usually revision. When screening through registry reports from different countries, it appears that revision is defined quite differently. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES The purposes of this study were to compare the definitions of revision among registry reports and to apply common clinical scenarios to these definitions. METHODS We downloaded or requested reports of all available national joint registries. Of the 23 registries we identified, 13 had published reports that were available in English and were beyond the pilot phase. We searched these registries' reports for the definitions of the endpoint, mostly revision. We then applied the following scenarios to the definition of revision and analyzed if those scenarios were regarded as a revision: (A) wound revision without any addition or removal of implant components (such as hematoma evacuation); (B) exchange of head and/or liner (like for infection); (C) isolated secondary patella resurfacing; and (D) secondary patella resurfacing with a routine liner exchange. RESULTS All registries looked separately at the characteristic of primary implantation without a revision and 11 of 13 registers reported on the characteristics of revisions. Regarding the definition of revision, there were considerable differences across the reports. In 11 of 13 reports, the primary outcome was revision of the implant. In one registry the primary endpoint was "reintervention/revision" while another registry reported separately on "failure" and "reoperations". In three registries, the definition of the outcome was not provided, however in one report a results list gave an indication for the definition of the outcome. Wound revision without any addition or removal of implant components (scenario A) was considered a revision in three of nine reports that provided a clear definition on this question, whereas two others did not provide enough information to allow this determination. Exchange of the head and/or liner (like for infection; scenario B) was considered a revision in 11 of 11; isolated secondary patella resurfacing (scenario C) in six of eight; and secondary patella resurfacing with routine liner exchange (scenario D) was considered a revision in nine of nine reports. CONCLUSIONS Revision, which is the most common main endpoint used by arthroplasty registries, is not universally defined. This implies that some reoperations that are considered a revision in one registry are not considered a revision in another registry. Therefore, comparisons of implant performance using data from different registries have to be performed with caution. We suggest that registries work to harmonize their definitions of revision to help facilitate comparisons of results across the world's arthroplasty registries.