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]

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]

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]

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]

Abstract: Background: Cardiovascular complications are important causes of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery, with adverse cardiac outcomes estimated to occur in approximately 4% of all patients. Anti-platelet therapy withdrawal may precede up to 10% of acute cardiovascular syndromes, with withdrawal in the peri-operative setting incompletely appraised. Objectives: The aims of our study were to determine the proportion of patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery currently prescribed anti-platelet therapy, and identify current practice in peri-operative management. In addition, the relationship between management of anti-platelet therapy and peri-operative cardiac risk was assessed. Methods: We evaluated consecutive patients attending elective non-cardiac surgery at a major tertiary referral centre. Clinical and biochemical data were collected and analysed on patients currently prescribed anti-platelet therapy. Peri-operative management of anti-platelet therapy was compared with estimated peri-operative cardiac risk. Results: Included were 2950 consecutive patients, with 516 (17%) prescribed anti-platelet therapy, primarily for ischaemic heart disease. Two hundred and eighty nine (56%) patients had all anti-platelet therapy ceased in the peri-operative period, including 49% of patients with ischaemic heart disease and 46% of patients with previous coronary stenting. Peri-operative cardiac risk score did not influence anti-platelet therapy management. Conclusions: Approximately 17% of patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery are prescribed anti-platelet therapy, the predominant indication being for ischaemic heart disease. Almost half of all patients with previous coronary stenting had no anti-platelet therapy during the peri-operative period. The decision to cease anti-platelet therapy, which occurred commonly, did not appear to be guided by peri-operative cardiac risk stratification. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Introduction: Despite global concerns about the safety and quality of health care, population-wide studies of hospital outcomes are uncommon. The SAFety, Effectiveness of care and Resource use among Australian Hospitals (SAFER Hospitals) study seeks to estimate the incidence of serious adverse events, mortality, unplanned rehospitalisations and direct costs following hospital encounters using nationwide data, and to assess the variation and trends in these outcomes., Methods and Analysis: SAFER Hospitals is a cohort study with retrospective and prospective components. The retrospective component uses data from 2012 to 2018 on all hospitalised patients age ≥18 years included in each State and Territories' Admitted Patient Collections. These routinely collected datasets record every hospital encounter from all public and most private hospitals using a standardised set of variables including patient demographics, primary and secondary diagnoses, procedures and patient status at discharge. The study outcomes are deaths, adverse events, readmissions and emergency care visits. Hospitalisation data will be linked to subsequent hospitalisations and each region's Emergency Department Data Collections and Death Registries to assess readmissions, emergency care encounters and deaths after discharge. Direct hospital costs associated with adverse outcomes will be estimated using data from the National Cost Data Collection. Variation in these outcomes among hospitals will be assessed adjusting for differences in hospitals' case-mix. The prospective component of the study will evaluate the temporal change in outcomes every 4 years from 2019 until 2030., Ethics and Dissemination: Human Research Ethics Committees of the respective Australian states and territories provided ethical approval to conduct this study. A waiver of informed consent was granted for the use of de-identified patient data. Study findings will be disseminated via presentations at conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journals., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aims: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a costly condition for health service provision yet variation in the delivery of care between hospitals persists. A composite measure of adherence with evidence-based clinical-process indicators (CPIs) could better inform hospital performance reporting and clinical outcomes in the management of ACS., Methods: Data on 7444 ACS patients from 39 Australian hospitals were used to derive a hospital-specific composite quality score by calculating mean adherence to 14 evidence-based CPIs. Using the generalized estimating equation to account for clustering of patients within hospitals and the GRACE risk score to adjust for differences in presenting risk, we evaluated associations between the hospital-specific composite quality score, in-hospital major adverse events, in-hospital mortality and mortality and readmission for ACS at 6 months., Results: Hospitals had a mean adherence of 68.3% (SD 21.7) with the composite quality score. There was significant variation between hospital adherence tertile 1 (79%) and tertile 3 (56%), P < 0.0001. With risk adjustment, there was an association between hospitals with a higher composite quality score and reduced in-hospital adverse events (OR: 0.85, CI: 0.71-0.99) and survival at hospital discharge (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.28-0.77). There was trending improvement in survival at 6 months (OR 0.48; CI: 0.20-1.16) and fewer readmissions to hospital for ACS at 6 months (OR 0.79; CI 0.60-1.05)., Conclusion: The association between the quality composite score and reduced in-hospital events and survival at hospital discharge supports the utility of reporting CPIs in routine hospital performance reporting on the management of ACS., Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registration (anzctr): CONCORDANCE Registry ACTRN12614000887673., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2016. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose of Review: Registries are becoming an increasingly important component of clinical practice through the collection of clinical data including outcomes on representative populations of patients. An understanding of registry structure and function is important for practicing cardiovascular clinicians. Clinical populations may be identified on the basis of procedures they undergo (procedural registries), or their clinical condition (disease registries). Registries provide opportunities to document and improve quality of care. They also provide insights into the nature of disease and the benefit of treatments in subgroups of patients, and poorly resourced environments, that are not well represented in randomized clinical trials., Recent Findings: To maximize the value of registries, minimum quality criteria must be met. These include clear definitions of the included populations, an unbiased inclusive patient sampling strategy, high quality data with processes to ensure this, a clear governance structure, and adherence to relevant ethical and privacy guidelines. Statistical techniques adjusting for the nonrandomized nature of treatment allocations continue to evolve. There is increasing potential for randomized controlled trials to be conducted within registry cohorts. By using the same clinical data for both the registry and the trial, and enrolling unselected patients, this cost-effective approach provides information on the effectiveness of care in the pragmatic clinical environment., Summary: The potential of these rich clinical data sources is yet to be realized. Future developments that will enhance their value include improved efficiencies by integration with the electronic medical record, more widespread crosstalk between high quality registries facilitated by data linkage, simplification of ethical processes, and development of sustainable funding models.