| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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. - : BMJ. - 0959-535X. ; 340
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
