Search

Objective. Effective translation of evidence to practice may depend on systems of care characteristics within the health service. The present study evaluated associations between hospital expertise and infrastructure capacity and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care as part of the SNAPSHOT ACS registry. Methods. A survey collected hospital systems and process data and our analysis developed a score to assess hospital infrastructure and expertise capacity. Patient-level data from a registry of 4387 suspected ACS patients enrolled over a 2-wee Results. Of 375 participating hospitals, 348 (92.8%) were included in the analysis. Higher expertise was associated with increased coronary angiograms (440/1329; 33.1%), 580/1656 (35.0%) and 609/1402 (43.4%) for low, intermediate and high expertise capacity respectively; P < 0.001) and the prescription of guideline therapies observed a tendency for an association with (531/1329 (40.0%), 733/1656 (44.3%) and 603/1402 (43.0%) for low, intermediate and high expertise capacity respectively; P = 0.056), but not rehabilitation (474/1329 (35.7%), 603/1656 (36.4%) and 535/1402 (38.2%) for low, intermediate and high expertise capacity respectively; P = 0.377). Higher expertise capacity was associated with a lower incidence of major adverse events (152/1329 (11.4%), 142/1656 (8.6%) and 149/149 (10.6%) for low, intermediate and high expertise capacity respectively; P = 0.026), as well as adjusted mortality within 18 months (low vs intermediate expertise capacity: odds ratio (OR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.08, P = 0.153; intermediate vs high expertise capacity: OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48-0.86, P = 0.003). Conclusions. Both higher-level expertise in decision making and infrastructure capacity are associated with improved evidence translation and survival over 18 months of an ACS event and have clear healthcare design and policy implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with low and intermediate risk chest pain features comprise the greatest proportion presenting to emergency services for evaluation of suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The efficient and timely identification of patients with these features remains a major challenge within clinical practice. Troponin assays are increasingly being used for the determination of risk among patients presenting with chest pain potentially facilitating more appropriate care. To date, no economic evaluation comparing high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) reporting to standard troponin T (c-TnT) reporting in the routine management of suspected ACS and based on longer-term clinical outcomes has been conducted. Methods and results An economic evaluation was conducted with 1937 participants randomized to either hs-TnT ( n = 973) or c-TnT ( n = 964) with 12 month follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the number of cumulative combined outcomes of all-cause mortality and new or recurrent ACS avoided. Mean per participant Australian Medicare costs were higher in the hs-TnT arm compared to the c-TnT arm (by $1285/patient). Mean total adverse clinical outcomes avoided were higher in the hs-TnT arm (by 0.0120/patient) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $108,552/adverse clinical outcome avoided. An ICER of $49,030/adverse clinical outcome avoided was obtained when the analysis was restricted to patients below the threshold of normal Troponin testing (actual c-TnT levels < 30 ng/L). Conclusions hs-TnT reporting leads to fewer adverse clinical events but at a high ICER. For the routine implementation of hs-TnT to be more cost-effective, substantial changes in clinical practice will be required. Clinical trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000189628). https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=365726 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies of chronic diseases are associated with a financial burden on households. We aimed to determine if survivors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) experience household economic burden and to quantify any potential burden by examining level of economic hardship and factors associated with hardship. Methods: Australian patients admitted to hospital with ACS during 2-week period in May 2012, enrolled in SNAPSHOT ACS audit and who were alive at 18 months after index admission were followed-up via telephone/paper survey. Regression models were used to explore factors related to out-of-pocket expenses and economic hardship. Results: Of 1833 eligible patients at baseline, 180 died within 18 months, and 702 patients completed the survey. Mean out-of-pocket expenditure (n = 614) in Australian dollars was A$258.06 (median: A$126.50) per month. The average spending for medical services was A$120.18 (SD: A$310.35) and medications was A$66.25 (SD: A$80.78). In total, 350 (51 %) of patients reported experiencing economic hardship, 78 (12 %) were unable to pay for medical services and 81 (12 %) could not pay for medication. Younger age (18-59 vs =80 years (OR): 1.89), no private health insurance (OR: 2.04), pensioner concession card (OR: 1.80), residing in more disadvantaged area (group 1 vs 5 (OR): 1.77), history of CVD (OR: 1.47) and higher out-of-pocket expenses (group 4 vs 1 (OR): 4.57) were more likely to experience hardship. Conclusion: Subgroups of ACS patients are experiencing considerable economic burden in Australia. These findings provide important considerations for future policy development in terms of the cost of recommended management for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the proportion of patients hospitalised with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in Australia and New Zealand who received optimal inpatient preventive care and to identify factors associated with preventive care. Methods: All patients hospitalised bi-nationally with ACS were identified between 14-27 May 2012. Optimal in-hospital preventive care was defined as having received lifestyle advice, referral to rehabilitation, and prescription of secondary prevention pharmacotherapies. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with receipt of optimal preventive care. Results: For the 2299 ACS survivors, mean (SD) age was 69 (13) years, 46% were referred to rehabilitation, 65% were discharged on sufficient preventive medications, and 27% received optimal preventive care. Diagnosis of ST elevation myocardial infarction (OR: 2.64 [95% CI: 1.88-3.71]; p<0.001) and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (OR: 1.99 [95% CI: 1.52-2.61]; p<0.001) compared with a diagnosis of unstable angina, having a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (OR: 4.71 [95% CI: 3.67-6.11]; p<0.001) or coronary bypass (OR: 2.10 [95% CI: 1.21-3.60]; p=0.011) during the admission or history of hypertension (OR:1.36 [95% CI: 1.06-1.75]; p=0.017) were associated with greater exposure to preventive care. Age over 70 years (OR:0.53 [95% CI: 0.35-0.79]; p=0.002) or admission to a private hospital (OR:0.59 [95% CI: 0.42-0.84]; p=0.003) were associated with lower exposure to preventive care. Conclusions: Only one-quarter of ACS patients received optimal secondary prevention in-hospital. Patients with UA, who did not have PCI, were over 70 years or were admitted to a private hospital, were less likely to receive optimal care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]