Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Six-month survival benefits associated with clinical guideline recommendations in acute coronary syndromes
  1. D P Chew1,
  2. F A Anderson2,
  3. Á Avezum3,
  4. K A Eagle4,
  5. G FitzGerald2,
  6. J M Gore5,
  7. R Dedrick2,
  8. D Brieger6,
  9. for the GRACE Investigators
  1. 1Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  2. 2Center for Outcomes Research, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  3. 3Dante Pazzanese Institute of Cardiology, São Paulo, Brazil
  4. 4University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  5. 5Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  6. 6Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Derek P Chew, Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders Drive, Bedford Park, SA 5042, Australia; derek.chew{at}


Aims The authors sought to define which guideline-advocated therapies are associated with the greatest benefit with respect to 6-month survival in patients hospitalised with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Methods and results The authors conducted a nested case–control study of ACS patients within the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events cohort between April 1999 and December 2007. The cases were ACS patients who survived to discharge but died within 6 months. The controls were patients who survived to 6 months, matched for ACS diagnosis, age and the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk score. Rates of use of evidence-based medications and coronary interventions (angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery) were compared. Logistic regression including matched variables was used, and the attributable mortality from incomplete application of each therapy was calculated. A total of 1716 cases and 3432 controls were identified. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention were associated with the greatest 6-month survival benefit (OR for death 0.60 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.90) and 0.57 (0.48 to 0.72), respectively). Statins and clopidogrel provided the greatest independent pharmacologic benefit (ORs for death 0.85 (0.73 to 0.99) and 0.84 (0.72 to 0.99)) with lesser effects seen with other pharmacotherapies.

Conclusions A diminishing benefit associated with each additional ACS therapy is evident. These data may provide a rational basis for selecting between therapeutic options when compliance or cost is an issue.

  • Acute coronary syndromes
  • clinical guidelines
  • mortality
  • acute coronary syndrome
  • community cardiology
  • delivery of care
View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Competing interests DPC receives funding from sanofi-aventis Australia and MSD Australia. KAE receives funding from Biosite, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiac Sciences, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Hewlett Foundation, Mardigian Fund, Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Varbedian fund, National Heart, Lung and Blood NIH. FAA, ÁA, JMG, DB and RD receive funding from sanofi-aventis.

  • Ethics approval The GRACE Study was conducted with the approval of each of the participating centres around the world.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.