Search

Objective: To assess long term survival and patient characteristics associated with survival following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Australia and New Zealand.Design: Cohort study.Setting, Participants: All patients admitted with AMI (ICD-10-AM codes I21.0-I21.4) to all public and most private hospitals in Australia and New Zealand during 2009-2015.Main Outcome Measure: All-cause mortality up to seven years after an AMI.Results: 239 402 initial admissions with AMI were identified; the mean age of the patients was 69.3 years (SD, 14.3 years), 154 287 were men (64.5%), and 64 335 had ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI; 26.9%). 7-year survival after AMI was 62.3% (STEMI, 70.8%; non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI], 59.2%); survival exceeded 85% for people under 65 years of age, but was 17.4% for those aged 85 years or more. 120 155 patients (50.2%) underwent revascularisation (STEMI, 72.2%; NSTEMI, 42.1%); 7-year survival exceeded 80% for patients in each group who underwent revascularisation, and was lower than 45% for those who did not. Being older (85 years or older v 18-54 years: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 10.6; 95% CI, 10.1-11.1) or a woman (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.13-1.17) were each associated with greater long term mortality during the study period, as was prior heart failure (aHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.83). Several non-cardiac conditions and geriatric syndromes common in these patients were independently associated with lower long term survival, including major and metastatic cancer, cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease, and dementia.Conclusion: AMI care in Australia and New Zealand is associated with high rates of long term survival; 7-year rates exceed 80% for patients under 65 years of age and for those who undergo revascularisation. Efforts to further improve survival should target patients with NSTEMI, who are often older and have several comorbid conditions, for whom revascularisation rates are low and survival after AMI poor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which aims to qualify acute coronary syndrome (ACS) management in New Zealand and Australia and evaluate the use of recommended treatment. It says that the study involved hospitalised patients with confirmed or suspected ACS, whose records were assessed using logistic regression and descriptive analyses. The study determined variations in the use of ACS evidence base and differing levels of inhospital events.

Objectives: To describe temporal trends in the use of evidence-based medical therapies and management of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in Australia and New Zealand.Design, Setting and Participants: Our analysis of the Australian and New Zealand cohort of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) included patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment-elevation ACS (NSTEACS) enrolled continuously between January 2000 and December 2007 from 11 metropolitan and rural centres in Australia and New Zealand.Results: 5615 patients were included in this analysis (1723 with STEMI; 3892 with NSTEACS). During 2000-2007 there was an increase in the use of statin therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and thienopyridines (P < 0.0001 for each). Among patients with STEMI, there was an increase in emergency revascularisation with PCI (from 11% to 27% [P < 0.0001]), and inhospital coronary angiography (from 61% to 76% [P < 0.0001]). Among patients with NSTEACS, there was an increase in revascularisation with PCI (from 20% to 25% [P = 0.004]). Heart failure rates declined substantially among STEMI and NSTEACS patients (from 21% to 12% [P = 0.0002], and from 13% to 4% [P < 0.0001], respectively) as did rates of hospital readmission for ischaemic heart disease at 6 months (from 23% to 9% [P = 0.0001], and from 24% to 15% [P = 0.0001], respectively).Conclusions: From 2000 to 2007 in Australia and New Zealand, there was a fall in inhospital events and 6-month readmissions among patients admitted with ACS. This showed an association with improved uptake of guideline-recommended medical and interventional therapies. These data suggest an overall improvement in the quality of care offered to contemporary ACS patients in Australia and New Zealand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study that described the temporal trends in the use of evidence-based medical therapies and management of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in Australia and New Zealand. It reports on the increase in the use of statin therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers from 2000 to 2007. During the same period, a decline in in-hospital events and 6-month re-admissions among patients with ACS were also reported.

Objectives: To assess the impact of the availability of a catheterisation laboratory and evidence-based care on the 18-month mortality rate in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS).Design, Setting and Participants: Management and outcomes are described for patients enrolled in the 2012 Australian and New Zealand SNAPSHOT ACS audit. Patients were stratified according to their presentation to hospitals with or without cardiac catheterisation facilities. Data linkage ascertained patient vital status 18 months after admission. Descriptive and Cox proportional hazards analyses determined predictors of outcomes, and were used to estimate the numbers of deaths that could be averted by improved application of evidence-based care.Main Outcome Measures: Mortality for ACS patients from admission to 18 months after admission.Results: Definite ACS patients presenting to catheterisation-capable (CC) hospitals (n = 1326) were more likely to undergo coronary angiography than those presenting to non-CC hospitals (n = 1031) (61.5% v 50.8%; P = 0.0001), receive timely reperfusion (for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients: 45.2% v 19.2%; P < 0.001), and be referred for cardiac rehabilitation (57% v 53%; P = 0.05). All-cause mortality over 18 months was highest for STEMI (16.2%) and non-STEMI (16.3%) patients, and lowest for those presenting with unstable angina (6.8%) and non-cardiac chest pain (4.8%; P < 0.0001 for trend). After adjustment for patient propensity to present to a CC hospital and patient risk, presentation to a CC hospital was associated with 21% (95% CI, 2%-37%) lower mortality than presentation to a non-CC hospital. This mortality difference was attenuated after adjusting for delivery of evidence-based care.Conclusion: In Australia and New Zealand, the availability of a catheterisation laboratory appears to have a significant impact on long-term mortality in ACS patients, which is still substantial. This mortality may be reduced by improvements in evidence-based care in both CC and non-CC hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) guidelines recommend that patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) be offered the same therapies as other high-risk ACS patients with normal renal function. Our objective was to describe the gaps in evidence-based care offered to patients with ACS and concomitant CKD.Methods: Patients presenting to 41 Australian hospitals with suspected ACS were stratified by presence of CKD (glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min). Receipt of evidence-based care including, coronary angiography (CA), evidence-based discharge medications (EBMs), and cardiac rehabilitation (CR) referral, were compared between patients with and without CKD. Hospital and clinical factors that predicted receipt of care were determined using multilevel multivariable stepwise logistic regression models.Results: Of the 4,778 patients admitted with suspected ACS, 1,227 had CKD. On univariate analyses, patients with CKD were less likely to undergo CA (59.1% vs 85.0%, P < .0001) or receive EBM (69.4% vs 78.7%, P < .0001), or were offered CR (49.5% vs 68.0%, P < .0001). After adjusting for patient characteristics and clustering by hospital, CKD remained an independent predictor of not undergoing CA only (odds ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.37-0.61). Within the CKD cohort, presenting to a hospital with a catheterization laboratory was the strongest predictor of undergoing CA (odds ratio 3.07, 95% CI 1.91-4.93).Conclusion: The presence of CKD independently predicts failure to undergo CA but not failure to receive EBM or CR, which is predicted by comorbidities. Among the CKD population, performance of CA is largely determined by admission to a catheterization capable hospital. Targeting these patients through standardization of care across institutions offers opportunities to improve outcomes in this high-risk population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]