Management of myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) in Germany: a single-center study on hospital resources and healthcare economics

Résumé fourni par la source

Background Patients with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) present as a main feature ≤50% stenosis upon angiography despite clinical symptoms and biomarker elevation related to acute coronary syndrome. Due to broad availability of high sensitivity troponin testing as well as invasive and non-invasive imaging, this clinical entity receives increasing clinical awareness. Objective We aimed to investigate the in-hospital work flow and economic impact of MINOCA vs. MICAD (myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease) patients and related clinical outcomes in a single-center patient collective of a large university heart center in Germany. Methods We retrospectively screened and analyzed all patients who were admitted to our hospital under the suspicion of an acute coronary syndrome within a 12-month period (2017–2018) for further diagnostics and treatment. All included patients showed a pathological troponin elevation and received invasive coronary angiography for acute coronary syndrome. Associated in-hospital costs, procedural and various clinical parameters as well as timelines and parameters of work-flow were obtained. Results After screening of 3,021 patients, we included 660 patients with acute coronary syndrome. Of those, 118 patients were attributed to the MINOCA-group. 542 patients presented with a “classical” myocardial infarction (MICAD group). MINOCA patients were less frail, more likely female, but showed no relevant difference in age or other selected comorbidities except for fewer cases of diabetes. In-hospital mortality (11% vs. 0%; p < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (17.3% vs. 4.2%; p < 0.001) after the index event were significantly higher in the “classical” myocardial infarction group (MICAD)- Despite a shorter overall length of hospital stay (9.5 ± 8.7 days vs. 12.3 ± 10.5 days, p < 0.01) with a significantly shorter duration of high care monitoring (intensive/intermediate care or chest pain units) (2.4 ± 2.1 days vs. 4.7 ± 3.3 days, p < 0.01) MINOCA patients consumed a relevant contingent of hospital resources. Thus, in a 12-months period a total sum of almost 300 days was attributed to high care monitoring for MINOCA patients with a mean difference of approximately 50% compared to patients with classical myocardial infarction. With average and median costs of 50% less per index, MINOCA treatment costs were lower compared to the MICAD group in the hospital reimbursement system of Germany. Consequently, MINOCA treatment was not associated with a relevant profit for these expanses and a relevant share of nearly 40% of the total costs was generated due to high care monitoring. Conclusion In light of lower mortality than MICAD and growing scarcity of staff, financial and capacity resources the clinical symptom complex of MINOCA should be put under particular consideration for refining care concepts and resource allocation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.