The effect of acute coronary syndrome care pathways on in-hospital patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Health care institutions need to construct management strategies for patients diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) that focus on evidence-based treatments, adherence to treatment guidelines, and organized care. These help to reduce variations as well as the mortality and morbidity rates, which indicates the critical need for standardized care and adherence to evidence-based practices for patients hospitalized with ACS. The care pathways translate research and guidelines into clinical practice to close the gap between the guidelines and the clinical practices.

OBJECTIVES: This review focuses on identifying the indicators used to evaluate ACS care pathways and their effect on the care process and clinical outcomes.

METHODS: This review follows the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The systematic research was conducted using five research databases. Two groups were created by dividing the studies according to their year of publication. The first group included those studies published from 1997 to 2007 ("Group 1"), while the second included those published from 2008 to 2018 ("Group 2"). Selected studies were screened using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool.

RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in this review. One study was a randomized controlled trial, 14 were predesigns and postdesigns, and two were longitudinal observational designs. The Group 1 studies demonstrated that ACS care pathways had a positive effect on reducing the length of the hospital stay and the door-to-balloon times. Similar effects were observed for the Group 2 studies.

CONCLUSION: Implementing ACS care pathway helps to organize care processes and decrease treatment delays as well as improve the patient outcomes without adverse consequences for patients or additional resources and costs. While the current level of evidence is inadequate to warrant a formal recommendation, there is a need for more studies with an emphasis on well-designed randomization to measure patient outcomes.