| 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
- 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.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)].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.
|
|
| 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
- 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.
|
|
| 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
- BACKGROUND: For acute myocardial infarction (AMI) without heart failure (HF), it is unclear if beta-blockers are associated with reduced mortality.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).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.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> 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 < 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).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.
|
|
| 5. |
- 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
- Aims To assess the international validity of using hospital record data to compare long-term outcomes in heart attack survivors.Methods and results 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 [n = 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)].Conclusion 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.
|
|
| 6. |
- Schiele, Francois, et al.
(författare)
-
2020 Update of the quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction: a position paper of the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care: the study group for quality indicators from the ACVC and the NSTE-ACS guideline group
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 2048-8726 .- 2048-8734. ; 10:2, s. 224-233
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims Quality indicators (QIs) are tools to improve the delivery of evidence-base medicine. In 2017, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) developed a set of QIs for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), which have been evaluated at national and international levels and across different populations. However, an update of these QIs is needed in light of the accumulated experience and the changes in the supporting evidence. Methods and results The ESC methodology for the QI development was used to update the 2017 ACVC QIs. We identified key domains of AMI care, conducted a literature review, developed a list of candidate QIs, and used a modified Delphi method to select the final set of indicators. The same seven domains of AMI care identified by the 2017 Study Group were retained for this update. For each domain, main and secondary QIs were developed reflecting the essential and complementary aspects of care, respectively. Overall, 26 QIs are proposed in this document, compared to 20 in the 2017 set. New QIs are proposed in this document (e.g. the centre use of high-sensitivity troponin), some were retained or modified (e.g. the in-hospital risk assessment), and others were retired in accordance with the changes in evidence [e.g. the proportion of patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) treated with fondaparinux] and the feasibility assessments (e.g. the proportion of patients with NSTEMI whom risk assessment is performed using the GRACE and CRUSADE risk scores). Conclusion Updated QIs for the management of AMI were developed according to contemporary knowledge and accumulated experience. These QIs may be applied to evaluate and improve the quality of AMI care.
|
|
