Achievement of guideline recommended LDL-C goals in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Switzerland

Abstract Background In 2016 and subsequently again in 2019 the ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemia established a more intensive reduction of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment recommendations. We aim to characterize patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with regards to ac...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European heart journal 2021-10, Vol.42 (Supplement_1)
Hauptverfasser: Hoepli, A, Ahmed, K, Rickli, H, Eberli, F, Kobza, R, Pedrazzini, G, Radovanovic, D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background In 2016 and subsequently again in 2019 the ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemia established a more intensive reduction of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment recommendations. We aim to characterize patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with regards to achievement of recommended LDL-C goals and their current lipid lowering therapy. Methods We retrospectively analysed patients with AMI admitted to Swiss hospitals between 2016 and 2020. Patients were classified as “very high risk” due to prior atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ACSVD) events including at least one of the following: Myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus with target organ damage. The remaining patients were classified as “other risk”. LDL-C treatment recommendation goals for the “very high risk” population were set to 1.8mmol/L (2016 ESC/EAS Guidelines) or 1.4mmol/L (2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines) and for the “other risk” population to 2.6mmol/L or 1.8mmol/L. To identify differences between the two groups the Mann-Whitney test was used and for differences within a group the Kruskal-Wallis test. In-hospital outcomes were summarised as major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Results Among 7114 patients included, 18.4% were categorized as “very high risk” and 81.6% as “other risk” (p
ISSN:0195-668X
1522-9645
DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.1422