Hospital-Level Variability in NSTEMI Management: Findings From the NCDR Chest Pain-MI Registry.

IF 7.2 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Yasser M Sammour, John A Spertus, Nathaniel R Smilowitz, Huaying Dong, Pratik B Sandesara, Sachin S Goel, Safi U Khan, Alpesh Shah, Philip Jones, Natalie Wheeler, Yang Song, Tanveer Rab, William J Nicholson, Wissam A Jaber, Rishi K Wadhera, Neal S Kleiman
{"title":"Hospital-Level Variability in NSTEMI Management: Findings From the NCDR Chest Pain-MI Registry.","authors":"Yasser M Sammour, John A Spertus, Nathaniel R Smilowitz, Huaying Dong, Pratik B Sandesara, Sachin S Goel, Safi U Khan, Alpesh Shah, Philip Jones, Natalie Wheeler, Yang Song, Tanveer Rab, William J Nicholson, Wissam A Jaber, Rishi K Wadhera, Neal S Kleiman","doi":"10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.126.016534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although guidelines recommend invasive management for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), there is considerable variability in the application of these recommendations across different hospitals, reflecting a lack of standardized clinical pathways and highlighting ongoing uncertainty in real-world practice. We sought to describe site-level variability in the use and timing of invasive angiography for NSTEMI and its association with in-hospital outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using National Cardiovascular Data Registry Chest Pain-MI registry data (2019-2024), the rates and timing of invasive coronary angiography, if any, were characterized among patients with NSTEMI. Hierarchical logistic regression models were created to describe hospital-level variability in management using median odds ratios, adjusted for patient and site characteristics. Inverse probability weighting was used to estimate the association between treatment strategy and in-hospital outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 287 275 patients with type-1 NSTEMI from 541 hospitals (age, 67.6±13.3 years; 36.4% women). Invasive coronary angiography was performed in 87.1%, of whom 56.9% within 24 hours. Among those treated invasively, 66.1% received percutaneous coronary intervention. Older patients with more comorbidities were paradoxically more likely to receive conservative management or delayed intervention (>24 hours). Site-level variability for invasive strategy (versus conservative) was large (median odds ratio, 2.85 (95% CI, 2.64-3.10]), as was early invasive treatment (median odds ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.62-1.74]), particularly on weekends/holidays (median odds ratio, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.81-1.98]). The use of any invasive strategy was associated with lower in-hospital mortality versus conservative management (weighted odds ratio, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.31-0.42]). This finding was consistent across all baseline risk categories (<i>P</i><sub>interaction</sub><0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients with type-1 NSTEMI and higher-risk clinical profiles were not consistently prioritized to undergo early invasive management with substantial variability across hospitals. Invasive management was associated with lower in-hospital mortality compared with conservative treatment. Future randomized studies in the modern percutaneous coronary intervention era are needed to confirm our findings and identify which patients benefit most and when intervention should occur.</p>","PeriodicalId":10330,"journal":{"name":"Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":" ","pages":"e016534"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.126.016534","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although guidelines recommend invasive management for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), there is considerable variability in the application of these recommendations across different hospitals, reflecting a lack of standardized clinical pathways and highlighting ongoing uncertainty in real-world practice. We sought to describe site-level variability in the use and timing of invasive angiography for NSTEMI and its association with in-hospital outcomes.

Methods: Using National Cardiovascular Data Registry Chest Pain-MI registry data (2019-2024), the rates and timing of invasive coronary angiography, if any, were characterized among patients with NSTEMI. Hierarchical logistic regression models were created to describe hospital-level variability in management using median odds ratios, adjusted for patient and site characteristics. Inverse probability weighting was used to estimate the association between treatment strategy and in-hospital outcomes.

Results: We included 287 275 patients with type-1 NSTEMI from 541 hospitals (age, 67.6±13.3 years; 36.4% women). Invasive coronary angiography was performed in 87.1%, of whom 56.9% within 24 hours. Among those treated invasively, 66.1% received percutaneous coronary intervention. Older patients with more comorbidities were paradoxically more likely to receive conservative management or delayed intervention (>24 hours). Site-level variability for invasive strategy (versus conservative) was large (median odds ratio, 2.85 (95% CI, 2.64-3.10]), as was early invasive treatment (median odds ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.62-1.74]), particularly on weekends/holidays (median odds ratio, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.81-1.98]). The use of any invasive strategy was associated with lower in-hospital mortality versus conservative management (weighted odds ratio, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.31-0.42]). This finding was consistent across all baseline risk categories (Pinteraction<0.001).

Conclusions: Patients with type-1 NSTEMI and higher-risk clinical profiles were not consistently prioritized to undergo early invasive management with substantial variability across hospitals. Invasive management was associated with lower in-hospital mortality compared with conservative treatment. Future randomized studies in the modern percutaneous coronary intervention era are needed to confirm our findings and identify which patients benefit most and when intervention should occur.

NSTEMI管理的医院水平变异性:来自NCDR胸痛-心肌梗死登记的发现。
背景:尽管指南建议对非st段抬高型心肌梗死(NSTEMI)进行侵入性治疗,但不同医院对这些建议的应用存在相当大的差异,这反映了缺乏标准化的临床途径,并突出了现实世界实践中持续的不确定性。我们试图描述在非stemi中侵入性血管造影的使用和时机的部位水平变异性及其与院内预后的关系。方法:使用NCDR胸痛-心肌梗死登记数据(2019-2024),对NSTEMI患者进行有创冠状动脉造影的率和时间(如果有的话)进行特征分析。采用中位数优势比(MORs)建立分层逻辑回归模型,根据患者和部位特征进行调整,描述医院管理水平的可变性。使用逆概率加权来估计治疗策略与院内结局之间的关联。结果:我们纳入了来自541家医院的287275例1型NSTEMI患者(年龄67.6±13.3岁,36.4%为女性)。有创冠状动脉造影占87.1%,其中56.9%在24小时内完成。在有创治疗中,66.1%的患者接受了经皮冠状动脉介入治疗。有更多合并症的老年患者更有可能接受保守治疗或延迟干预(>24小时)。有创策略(相对于保守)的部位水平变异性很大[MOR 2.85(2.64-3.10)],早期有创治疗[MOR 1.67(1.62-1.74)],特别是在周末/节假日[MOR 1.89(1.81-1.98)]。与保守治疗相比,任何侵入性治疗的使用都与较低的住院死亡率相关[加权OR为0.36(0.31-0.42)]。这一发现在所有基线风险类别中都是一致的(p -相互作用)。结论:1型NSTEMI和高风险临床特征的患者并没有一致地优先接受早期侵入性治疗,各医院的差异很大。与保守治疗相比,侵入性治疗与较低的住院死亡率相关。未来需要在现代PCI时代进行随机研究来证实我们的发现,并确定哪些患者受益最大,何时应该进行干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
1.80%
发文量
221
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, an American Heart Association journal, focuses on interventional techniques pertaining to coronary artery disease, structural heart disease, and vascular disease, with priority placed on original research and on randomized trials and large registry studies. In addition, pharmacological, diagnostic, and pathophysiological aspects of interventional cardiology are given special attention in this online-only journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书