[Risk profile in acute myocardial infarction: a necessary assessment for the population's comparisons]
M Fayard1, P Buttard, I Cusey-Sagnol
1Service de cardiologie, CHU de Dijon, 2, boulevard Maréchal-de-Lattre-de-Tassigny, 21000 Dijon, France. maximefayard@free.fr
Insights
Hospital mortality differences in acute myocardial infarction may stem from patient risk profiles, not guideline adherence. Risk scores like GRACE, EMMACE, and SRI help adjust for these differences, enabling valid comparisons.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Public Health
- Health Services Research
Background:
- Observed variations in in-hospital mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) between healthcare facilities.
- Potential confounding factors influencing mortality, including adherence to clinical guidelines and patient risk profiles.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate whether disparities in AMI mortality between hospitals are attributable to differences in patient risk stratification rather than variations in clinical practice.
- To validate the applicability of established risk scores for comparing patient populations undergoing AMI treatment.
Main Methods:
- Comparative analysis of two patient cohorts admitted for ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in 2006.
- Utilized GRACE, EMMACE, and Simple Risk Index (SRI) scores to assess and compare the risk profiles of the Chalon-sur-Saône hospital population and a regional control population (RICO).
Main Results:
- The GRACE, EMMACE, and SRI scores demonstrated applicability for the study populations, confirmed by the "C statistic".
- A significant difference in in-hospital mortality was observed between the Chalon-sur-Saône and RICO populations.
- The Chalon-sur-Saône population exhibited a higher baseline risk profile.
- Predicted in-hospital mortality rates using the risk scores closely matched the observed mortality rates.
Conclusions:
- GRACE, EMMACE, and SRI are validated tools for comparing the risk profiles of patient populations experiencing acute myocardial infarction.
- Accurate inter-hospital comparisons of AMI outcomes necessitate prior risk adjustment of the patient populations.
Objective:
The aim of this study is to show that differences of mortality, in acute myocardial infarction, observed between hospitals are not necessarily linked to a bad application of guidelines but can be linked to differences in the risk profile of the populations.
Methods:
Two populations admitted for ST and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in the same region in 2006 were compared: the population of Chalon-sur-Saône's hospital with a standard population from the observatoire des Infarctus de Côte d'Or (RICO). The risk profile of the two populations has been realised with the risk scores GRACE, EMMACE and the Simple Risk Index (SRI).
Results:
The three scores are applicable for our populations according to the "C statistic". Moreover, there is a significant difference of in-hospital mortality between Chalon-sur-Saône and RICO. But, the population of Chalon-sur-Saône presents a higher risk. Finally, in-hospital rate mortality expected by the three scores is not different from the actual mortality.
Conclusion:
GRACE, EMMACE and SRI are valid scores for the comparison of risk profile of populations in acute myocardial infarction. Comparisons between hospitals are only possible after risk adjustment of the populations.
Related Concept Videos
01:30Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
01:30Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
01:19Acute Coronary Syndrome II: Pathophysiology and Clinical Manifestations
01:26Acute Coronary Syndrome V: Nursing Management
01:28Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
01:27Myocarditis II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests