Guideline adherence for antithrombotic therapy in acute coronary syndrome: an overview in Dutch hospitals

• Published in: Netherlands heart journal Vol. 18; no. 6; pp. 291 - 300
• Main Authors: Kikkert, W. J., Piek, J. J., de Winter, R. J., Peters, R. J., Henriques, J. P. S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Houten Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 01.06.2010
• Subjects: Cardiology; Medical Education; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Original; Original Article
• ISSN: 1568-5888; 1876-6250
• DOI: 10.1007/BF03091779

To assess current Dutch antithrombotic treatment strategies for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in light of the current European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. For every Dutch hospital with a coronary care unit (CCU) (n = 93) a single cardiologist was interviewed concerning heparin, thienopyridine and GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) treatment. In each hospital, we randomly approached one cardiologist assuming equal policy among physicians employed at the same hospital. The response rate was 90%. In 59% of hospitals, treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) occurred according to the 2008 ESC STEMI guideline, with unfractionated heparin. In contrast, although not recommended, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was used in 39% (enoxaparin 19%, dalteparin 12%, nadroparin 8%). In non-STEMI, low-molecular-weight-heparins (LMWHs) were used in 97% of all hospitals. Fondaparinux, agent of choice in a noninvasive strategy for the treatment of non-STEMI, was applied in only 2% of hospitals. Although recommended by the ESC, dose adjustment of LMWH therapy for patients with renal failure is not applied in 71% of hospitals. Likewise, LMWH dose adjustment is not applied for patients aged over 75 years in 92% of hospitals. To a great extent treatment of ACS in the Netherlands occurs according to ESC guidelines. Additional benefit may be achieved by routine dose adjustment of LMWH for patients with renal insufficiency and aged >75 years, since these patients are at high risk of bleeding complications secondary to antithrombotic treatment. Periodical evaluation of real-life practice may improve guideline adherence and potentially improve clinical outcome. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:291-9.).