Paradoxical use of invasive cardiac procedures for patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: An international perspective from the CRUSADE Initiative and the Canadian ACS Registries I and II

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines support an early invasive strategy in patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, particularly in those at higher risk. OBJECTIVES: To compare North American rates of invasive cardiac procedure use stratified by risk. METHODS: Use of invasive cardiac procedures and other care patterns in patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes from the United States (US) Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines (CRUSADE) National Quality Improvement Initiative (n=88,097; 465 hospitals) and Canadian ACS Registries I (n=1270; 51 hospitals) and II (n=1473; 36 hospitals) were compared after dividing patients into different risk categories based on predicted risk of in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: While the overall use of invasive procedures was higher in the US, high-risk patients were least likely to undergo coronary angiography (41% versus 64% in Canada [P<0.0001] and 53% versus 76% in the United States [P<0.0001]) and percutaneous coronary intervention (14% versus 32% in Canada [P<0.0001] and 28% versus 51% in the US [P<0.0001]) compared with low-risk patients in both countries, and had longer median waiting times for these procedures (120 h versus 96 h in Canada [P<0.0001] and 34 h versus 23 h in the US [P<0.0001] for coronary angiography). CONCLUSIONS: The inverse relationship between risk level and the use of invasive cardiac procedures for patients in the US and Canada suggests that a risk stratification-guided approach for triaging patients to an early invasive management strategy is paradoxically used. This incongruous relationship holds true regardless of resource availability or overall rates of cardiac catheterization.