[Influence of hospital type on treatment and prognosis in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome].
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
Clinical practice guidelines on non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) do not take either hospital infrastructure or the availability of a catheterization laboratory into account. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of hospital type, either with or without a catheterization laboratory, on treatment and medium-term prognosis in patients with NSTEACS.


METHODS
The GYSCA multicenter study (covering 15 hospitals) investigated the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in patients with NSTEACS at six hospitals with catheterization laboratories (i.e. tertiary-care hospitals; THs) and nine without (i.e. secondary-care hospitals; SHs). Patients were assessed clinically at hospital discharge and after 3 and 12 months.


RESULTS
In total, 1133 consecutive patients were recruited: 599 (52.9%) in THs and 534 (47.1%) in SHs. The use of specific class-I interventions (i.e. aspirin, clopidogrel, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and statins) was more common in THs (P< .01) and more patients in THs underwent revascularization while in hospital (43% vs. 30%; P< .01). The number of SH patients who were readmitted for NSTEACS at 1 year was 5-fold greater than the number of TH patients (12.8% vs. 2.3%; P< .01), and hospital type was a predictor of an adverse event.


CONCLUSIONS
Patients admitted for NSTEACS to a hospital without a catheterization laboratory were managed less invasively and their drug treatment was less likely to have been modified to match guideline recommendations. In addition to other well-known prognostic factors, hospital type can also have an influence on patient outcomes.