Temporal patterns of lipid testing and statin therapy in acute coronary syndrome patients (from the Canadian GRACE Experience).Am J Cardiol. 2012 May 15; 109(10):1418-24.AJ
Current guidelines recommend the measurement of fasting lipid profile and use of statins in all patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the temporal trends of lipid testing and statin therapy in "real-world" patients with ACS are unclear. From January 1999 through December 2008, the prospective, multicenter, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE/GRACE(2)/CANRACE) enrolled 13,947 patients with ACS in Canada. We stratified the study population based on year of presentation into 3 groups (1999 to 2004, 2005 to 2006, and 2007 to 2008) and compared the use of lipid testing and use of statin therapy in hospital. Overall, 70.8% of patients underwent lipid testing and 79.4% received in-hospital statin therapy; these patients were younger and had lower GRACE risk scores (p <0.001 for the 2 comparisons) compared to those who did not. Over time there was a significant increase in rates of in-hospital statin therapy (70% in 1999 to 2004 to 84.5% in 2007 to 2008, p for trend < 0.001) but only a minor increase in rates of lipid testing (69.4% in 1999 to 2004 to 72.4% in 2007 to 2008, p for trend = 0.003). After adjusting for confounders, this increasing temporal trend remained statistically significant for statin therapy (p <0.001) but not for lipid testing. Lipid testing was independently associated with in-hospital statin use (adjusted odds ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.27 to 2.08, p <0.001). In patients who did have lipid testing, those with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level >130 mg/dl (3.4 mmol/L) were more likely to be treated with in-hospital statins. In conclusion, there has been a significant temporal increase in the use of in-hospital statin therapy but only a minor increase in lipid testing. Lipid testing was strongly associated with in-hospital statin use. A substantial proportion of patients with ACS, especially those at higher risk, still do not receive these guideline-recommended interventions in contemporary practice.