SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Timmis Adam) "

Sökning: WFRF:(Timmis Adam)

  • Resultat 1-9 av 9
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  • Alabas, Oras A., et al. (författare)
  • Statistics on mortality following acute myocardial infarction in 842 897 Europeans
  • 2020
  • Ingår i: Cardiovascular Research. - OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 0008-6363 .- 1755-3245. ; 116:1, s. 149-157
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • <p>Aims: To compare ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) mortality between Sweden and the UK, adjusting for background population rates of expected death, case mix, and treatments.</p><p>Methods and results: National data were collected from hospitals in Sweden [n = 73 hospitals, 180 368 patients, Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART)] and the UK [n = 247, 662 529 patients, Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP)] between 2003 and 2013. There were lower rates of revascularization [STEMI (43.8% vs. 74.9%); NSTEMI (27.5% vs. 43.6%)] and pharmacotherapies at time of hospital discharge including [aspirin (82.9% vs. 90.2%) and (79.9% vs. 88.0%), beta-blockers (73.4% vs. 86.4%) and (65.3% vs. 85.1%)] in the UK compared with Sweden, respectively. Standardized net probability of death (NPD) between admission and 1 month was higher in the UK for STEMI [8.0 (95% confidence interval 7.4-8.5) vs. 6.7 (6.5-6.9)] and NSTEMI [6.8 (6.4-7.2) vs. 4.9 (4.7-5.0)]. Between 6 months and 1 year and more than 1 year, NPD remained higher in the UK for NSTEMI [2.9 (2.5-3.3) vs. 2.3 (2.2-2.5)] and [21.4 (20.0-22.8) vs. 18.3 (17.6-19.0)], but was similar for STEMI [0.7 (0.4-1.0) vs. 0.9 (0.7-1.0)] and [8.4 (6.7-10.1) vs. 8.3 (7.5-9.1)].</p><p>Conclusion: Short-term mortality following STEMI and NSTEMI was higher in the UK compared with Sweden. Mid- and longer-term mortality remained higher in the UK for NSTEMI but was similar for STEMI. Differences in mortality may be due to differential use of guideline-indicated treatments.</p>
  •  
2.
  • Chung, Sheng-Chia, et al. (författare)
  • Acute myocardial infarction a comparison of short-term survival in national outcome registries in Sweden and the UK
  • 2014
  • Ingår i: The Lancet. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 383:9925, s. 1305-1312
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • <p>Background International research for acute myocardial infarction lacks comparisons of whole health systems. We assessed time trends for care and outcomes in Sweden and the UK. Methods We used data from national registries on consecutive patients registered between 2004 and 2010 in all hospitals providing care for acute coronary syndrome in Sweden and the UK. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality 30 days after admission. We compared effectiveness of treatment by indirect casemix standardisation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01359033. Findings We assessed data for 119 786 patients in Sweden and 391 077 in the UK. 30-day mortality was 7.6% (95% CI 7.4-7.7) in Sweden and 10.5% (10.4-10.6) in the UK. Mortality was higher in the UK in clinically relevant subgroups defined by troponin concentration, ST-segment elevation, age, sex, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes mellitus status, and smoking status. In Sweden, compared with the UK, there was earlier and more extensive uptake of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (59% vs 22%) and more frequent use of beta blockers at discharge (89% vs 78%). After casemix standardisation the 30-day mortality ratio for UK versus Sweden was 1.37 (95% CI 1.30-1.45), which corresponds to 11 263 (95% CI 9620-12 827) excess deaths, but did decline over time (from 1.47, 95% CI 1.38-1.58 in 2004 to 1.20, 1.12-1.29 in 2010; p=0.01). Interpretation We found clinically important differences between countries in acute myocardial infarction care and outcomes. International comparisons research might help to improve health systems and prevent deaths.</p>
3.
  •  
4.
  • Dondo, Tatendashe B., et al. (författare)
  • beta-Blockers and Mortality After Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients Without Heart Failure or Ventricular Dysfunction
  • 2017
  • Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. - 0735-1097 .- 1558-3597. ; 69:22, s. 2710-2720
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • <p>BACKGROUND: For acute myocardial infarction (AMI) without heart failure (HF), it is unclear if beta-blockers are associated with reduced mortality.</p><p>OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine the association between beta-blocker use and mortality in patients with AMI without HF or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).</p><p>METHODS: This cohort study used national English and Welsh registry data from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project. A total of 179,810 survivors of hospitalization with AMI without HF or LVSD, between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2013 (final follow-up: December 31, 2013), were assessed. Survival-time inverse probability weighting propensity scores and instrumental variable analyses were used to investigate the association between the use of beta-blockers and 1-year mortality.</p><p>RESULTS: Of 91,895 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 87,915 patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 88,542 (96.4%) and 81,933 (93.2%) received beta-blockers, respectively. For the entire cohort, with&gt; 163,772 person-years of observation, there were 9,373 deaths (5.2%). Unadjusted 1-year mortality was lower for patients who received beta-blockers compared with those who did not (4.9% vs. 11.2%; p &lt; 0.001). However, after weighting and adjustment, there was no significant difference in mortality between those with and without beta-blocker use (average treatment effect [ATE] coefficient: 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.60 to 0.75; p = 0.827). Findings were similar for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coefficient: 0.30; 95% CI: -0.98 to 1.58; p = 0.637) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coefficient: -0.07; 95% CI: -0.68 to 0.54; p = 0.819).</p><p>CONCLUSIONS: Among survivors of hospitalization with AMI who did not have HF or LVSD as recorded in the hospital, the use of beta-blockers was not associated with a lower risk of death at any time point up to 1 year.</p>
5.
  •  
6.
  • Henriksson, Martin, et al. (författare)
  • Assessing the cost effectiveness of using prognostic biomarkers with decision models: case study in prioritising patients waiting for coronary artery surgery
  • 2010
  • Ingår i: BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL. - 0959-535X. ; 340
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • <p>Objective To determine the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of using information from circulating biomarkers to inform the prioritisation process of patients with stable angina awaiting coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Design Decision analytical model comparing four prioritisation strategies without biomarkers (no formal prioritisation, two urgency scores, and a risk score) and three strategies based on a risk score using biomarkers: a routinely assessed biomarker (estimated glomerular filtration rate), a novel biomarker (C reactive protein), or both. The order in which to perform coronary artery bypass grafting in a cohort of patients was determined by each prioritisation strategy, and mean lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared. Data sources Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (9935 patients with stable angina awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting and then followed up for cardiovascular events after the procedure for 3.8 years), and meta-analyses of prognostic effects (relative risks) of biomarkers. Results The observed risk of cardiovascular events while on the waiting list for coronary artery bypass grafting was 3 per 10 000 patients per day within the first 90 days (184 events in 9935 patients). Using a cost effectiveness threshold of 20 pound 000-30 pound 000 ((sic)22 000-(sic)33 000; $32 000-$48 000) per additional QALY, a prioritisation strategy using a risk score with estimated glomerular filtration rate was the most cost effective strategy (cost per additional QALY was andlt;410 pound compared with the Ontario urgency score). The impact on population health of implementing this strategy was 800 QALYs per 100 000 patients at an additional cost of 245 pound 000 to the National Health Service. The prioritisation strategy using a risk score with C reactive protein was associated with lower QALYs and higher costs compared with a risk score using estimated glomerular filtration rate. Conclusion Evaluating the cost effectiveness of prognostic biomarkers is important even when effects at an individual level are small. Formal prioritisation of patients awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting using a routinely assessed biomarker (estimated glomerular filtration rate) along with simple, routinely collected clinical information was cost effective. Prioritisation strategies based on the prognostic information conferred by C reactive protein, which is not currently measured in this context, or a combination of C reactive protein and estimated glomerular filtration rate, is unlikely to be cost effective. The widespread practice of using only implicit or informal means of clinically ordering the waiting list may be harmful and should be replaced with formal prioritisation approaches.</p>
7.
  • Pasea, Laura, et al. (författare)
  • Personalising the decision for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy development, validation and potential impact of prognosticmodels for cardiovascular events and bleeding in myocardial infarction survivors
  • 2017
  • Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 38:14, s. 1048-1055A
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • <p>Aims The aim of this study is to develop models to aid the decision to prolong dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) that requires balancing an individual patient's potential benefits and harms Methods and results Using population-based electronic health records (EHRs) (CALIBER, England, 2000-10), of patients evaluated 1 year after acute myocardial infarction (MI), we developed (n= 12 694 patients) and validated (n= 5613) prognostic models for cardiovascular (cardiovascular death, MI or stroke) events and three different bleeding endpoints. We applied trial effect estimates to determine potential benefits and harms of DAPT and the net clinical benefit of individuals. Prognostic models for cardiovascular events (c-index: 0.75 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.77)) and bleeding (c index 0.72 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.77)) were well calibrated: 3-year risk of cardiovascular events was 16.5% overall (5.2% in the lowest-and 46.7% in the highest-risk individuals), while for major bleeding, it was 1.7% (0.3% in the lowest-and 5.4% in the highest-risk patients). For every 10 000 patients treated per year, we estimated 249 (95% CI: 228, 269) cardiovascular events prevented and 134 (95% CI: 87, 181) major bleeding events caused in the highest-risk patients, and 28 (95% CI: 19, 37) cardiovascular events prevented and 9 (95% CI: 0, 20) major bleeding events caused in the lowest-risk patients. There was a net clinical benefit of prolonged DAPT in 63-99% patients depending on how benefits and harms were weighted Conclusion Prognostic models for cardiovascular events and bleeding using population-based EHRs may help to personalise decisions for prolonged DAPT 1-year following acute MI.</p>
8.
  • Rapsomaniki, Eleni, et al. (författare)
  • Using big data from health records from four countries to evaluate chronic disease outcomes a study in 114 364 survivors of myocardial infarction
  • 2016
  • Ingår i: European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes. - Oxford University Press. - 2058-5225 .- 2058-1742. ; 2:3, s. 172-183
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • <p><strong>Aims</strong> To assess the international validity of using hospital record data to compare long-term outcomes in heart attack survivors.</p><p><strong>Methods and results</strong> We used samples of national, ongoing, unselected record sources to assess three outcomes: cause death; a composite of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and all-cause death; and hospitalized bleeding. Patients aged 65 years and older entered the study 1 year following the most recent discharge for acute MI in 2002–11 [<em>n</em> = 54 841 (Sweden), 53 909 (USA), 4653 (England), and 961 (France)]. Across each of the four countries, we found consistent associations with 12 baseline prognostic factors and each of the three outcomes. In each country, we observed high 3-year crude cumulative risks of all-cause death (from 19.6% [England] to 30.2% [USA]); the composite of MI, stroke, or death [from 26.0% (France) to 36.2% (USA)]; and hospitalized bleeding [from 3.1% (France) to 5.3% (USA)]. After adjustments for baseline risk factors, risks were similar across all countries [relative risks (RRs) compared with Sweden not statistically significant], but higher in the USA for all-cause death [RR USA vs. Sweden, 1.14 (95% confidence interval 1.04–1.26)] and hospitalized bleeding [RR USA vs. Sweden, 1.54 (1.21–1.96)].</p><p><strong>Conclusion</strong> The validity of using hospital record data is supported by the consistency of estimates across four countries of a high adjusted risk of death, further MI, and stroke in the chronic phase after MI. The possibility that adjusted risks of mortality and bleeding are higher in the USA warrants further study.</p>
9.
  • Schiele, Francois, et al. (författare)
  • Quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction : A position paper of the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association.
  • 2017
  • Ingår i: European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care. - Sage Publications. - 2048-8734. ; 6:1, s. 34-59
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • <p>Evaluation of quality of care is an integral part of modern healthcare, and has become an indispensable tool for health authorities, the public, the press and patients. However, measuring quality of care is difficult, because it is a multifactorial and multidimensional concept that cannot be estimated solely on the basis of patients' clinical outcomes. Thus, measuring the process of care through quality indicators (QIs) has become a widely used practice in this context. Other professional societies have published QIs for the evaluation of quality of care in the context of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but no such indicators exist in Europe. In this context, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA) has reflected on the measurement of quality of care in the context of AMI (ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI)) and created a set of QIs, with a view to developing programmes to improve quality of care for the management of AMI across Europe. We present here the list of QIs defined by the ACCA, with explanations of the methodology used, scientific justification and reasons for the choice for each measure.</p>
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-9 av 9
 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy