Utilization of Evidence-Based Therapy for Acute Coronary Syndrome in High-Income and Low/Middle-Income Countries

Limited data exist regarding the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in high-income countries compared with low/middle-income countries. We aimed to compare in-hospital trends of revascularization and prescription of medications at discharge in patients with ACS from high-income (Canada and United States) and low/middle-income (India, Iran, Pakistan, and Tunisia) countries. Data from a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial investigating the effect of bupropion on smoking cessation in patients after an enzyme-positive ACS was used for our study. A total of 392 patients, 265 and 127 from high-income and from low/middle-income countries, respectively, were enrolled. Patients from high-income countries were older, and were more likely to have diagnosed hypertension and dyslipidemia. During the index hospitalization, patients from high-income countries were more likely to be treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (odds ratio [OR] 19.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.5 to 37.0). Patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction from high-income countries were more often treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (OR 16.3, 95% CI 6.3 to 42.3) in contrast with thrombolytic therapy (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.41). Patients from high-income countries were also more likely to receive evidence-based medications at discharge (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.52, a composite of aspirin, clopidogrel, and statin). In conclusion, patients with ACS in low/middle-income countries were less likely to be revascularized and to receive evidence-based medications at discharge. Further studies are needed to understand the underutilization of procedures and evidence-based medications in low/middle-income countries.