Application of a risk-guided strategy to secondary prevention of coronary heart disease: Analysis from a state-wide data linkage in Queensland, Australia

Abstract

Objective This study sought whether higher risk patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) benefit more from intensive disease management. Design Longitudinal cohort study. Setting State-wide public hospitals (Queensland, Australia). Participants This longitudinal study included 20 426 patients hospitalised in 2010 with CHD as the principal diagnosis. Patients were followed-up for 5 years. Primary and secondary outcomes and measures The primary outcome was days alive and out of hospital (DAOH) within 5 years of hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included all-cause readmission and all-cause mortality. A previously developed and validated risk score (PEGASUS-TIMI54) was used to estimate the risk of secondary events. Data on sociodemography, comorbidity, interventions and medications were also collected. Results High-risk patients (n=6573, risk score ≥6) had fewer DAOH (=-142 days (95% CI: -152 to -131)), and were more likely to readmit or die (all p<0.001) than their low-risk counterparts (n=13 367, risk score <6). Compared with patients who were never prescribed a medication, those who consumed maximal dose of betablockers ( =39 days (95% CI: 11 to 67)), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers ( =74 days (95% CI: 49 to 99)) or statins ( =109 days (95% CI: 90 to 128)) had significantly greater DAOH. Patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention ( =99 days (95% CI: 81 to 116)) or coronary artery bypass grafting ( =120 days (95% CI: 92 to 148)) also had significantly greater DAOH than those who did not. The effect sizes of these therapies were significantly greater in high-risk patients, compared with low-risk patients (interaction p<0.001). Analysis of secondary outcomes also found significant interaction between both medical and interventional therapies with readmission and death, implicating greater benefits for high-risk patients. Conclusions CHD patients can be effectively risk-stratified, and use of this information for a risk-guided strategy to prioritise high-risk patients may maximise benefits from additional resources spent on intensive disease management.