Search

Background: High-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) assays promise greater discrimination of evolving myocardial infarction, but the impact of unguided implementation on the effectiveness of care is uncertain.Methods and Results: We evaluated the impact of hs-TnT reporting on care and outcome among chest pain patients presenting to 5 emergency departments within a multicenter randomized trial. Patients were allocated to hs-TnT reporting (hs-report) or standard reporting (std-report; Roche Elecys). The primary end point was death and new or recurrent acute coronary syndrome by 12 months. A total of 1937 patients without ST-segment elevation were enrolled between July 2011 and March 2013. The median age was 61 (interquartile range, 48-74) years, and 46.3% were women. During the index hospitalization, 1466 patients (75.7%) had maximal troponin <30 ng/L within 24 hours. Randomization to hs-report format did not alter the admission rate (hs-report: 57.7% versus std-report: 58.0%; P=0.069). There was no difference in angiography (hs-report: 11.9% versus std-report: 10.9%; P=0.479). The hs-reporting did not reduce 12-month death or new/recurrent acute coronary syndrome in the overall population (hs-report: 9.7% versus std-report: 7.2% [hazard ratio, 0.83 (0.57-1.22); P=0.362]). However, among those with troponin levels <30 ng/L, a modest reduction in the primary end point was observed (hs-report: 2.6% versus std-report: 4.4%, [hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.1.00; P=0.050).Conclusions: High-sensitivity troponin reporting alone is associated with only modest changes in practice. Clinical effectiveness in the adoption of high-sensitivity troponin may require close coupling with protocols that guide interpretation and care.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.ANZCTR.org.au. Unique identifier: ACTRN12611000879965. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Informed consent is a basic standard of care for all patients undergoing medical procedures, but recall of information has been shown to be poor. We sought to compare verbal, written and animated audiovisual information delivery, during consent for coronary angiography, by measuring improvement in recall. Method: A sample population of 99 cardiac patients at Flinders Medical Centre was randomised (1:1:1) to receive one of three information delivery methods. The information content was standardised by a risk proforma, which explained the procedure and defined 12 specific risks. Recall, satisfaction and anxiety were assessed by a questionnaire administered at three different time points: post-consent, post-procedure and at 30 days. Effect of delivery method on satisfaction and anxiety was rated on a self-reported scale from 1-5, with 5 representing very satisfied or very anxious. Groups were compared by non-parametric testing and a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Patients were a median age of 64 (i.q.r. 56, 72) years. Information delivery method had no effect on recall of risks at any time-point (p=0.2, 0.7, 0.5, respectively) and the average recall score across the population was 3-4 out of 12. There was no significant effect on median satisfaction scores: verbal; 5 (i.q.r.4, 5) versus written/audiovisual; 4 (i.q.r.4, 5) (p=ns), or on median anxiety scores: verbal; 3 (i.q.r.2, 4) versus written/audiovisual; 3 (i.q.r.2, 4) (p=ns). Conclusion: Despite careful design of an innovative audiovisual delivery technique aimed at optimising comprehension and aiding memory, recall of information was poor and informational aids showed no improvement. Modes of information delivery are not the key to patient assimilation of complex medical information. [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]