Risk stratification in the setting of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes 1999-2007

Isuru Ranasinghe, Bernadette Alprandi-Costa, Vincent Chow, John M. Elliott, Jonathon Waites, John T. Counsell, Jose Lopéz-Sendón, Álvaro Avezum, Shaun G. Goodman, Christopher B. Granger, David Brieger*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

42 Citations (Scopus)


It is unclear if clinician risk stratification has changed with time. The aim of this study was to assess the temporal change in the concordance between patient presenting risk and the intensity of evidence-based therapies received for nonST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes over a 9-year period. Data from 3,562 patients with nonST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes enrolled in the Australian and New Zealand population of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) from 1999 to 2007 were analyzed. Patients were stratified to risk groups on the basis of the GRACE risk score for in-hospital mortality. Main outcome measures included in-hospital use of widely accepted evidence-based medications, investigations, and procedures. Invasive management was consistently higher in low-risk patients than in intermediate- or high-risk patients (coronary angiography 66.7% vs 63.5% vs 35.3%, p <0.001; percutaneous coronary intervention 31.1% vs 22.0% vs 12.9%, p <0.001). Absolute rates of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in the high-risk group remained 24% and 15% lower compared to the low-risk group in the most recent time period (2005 to 2007). In-hospital use of thienopyridine, lowmolecular weight heparin, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors showed a similar inverse relation with risk. Prescription of aspirin, β blockers, statins, and angiotensin receptor blockers was inversely related to risk before 2004, although this inverse relation was no longer present in the most recent time period (2005 to 2007). Only in-hospital use of unfractionated heparin showed use concordant with patient risk status. In conclusion, despite an overall increase in the uptake of evidence-based therapies, most investigations and treatments are not targeted on the basis of patient risk. Clinician risk stratification remains suboptimal compared to objective measures of patient risk.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)617-624
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Cardiology
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2011
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Risk stratification in the setting of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes 1999-2007'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this