Search

Objective: To determine whether sex differences exist in the assessment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk scores/risk factors in primary health care.Design/methods: PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched on 31 January 2017. Clinical trials and observational studies were included if they reported on the assessment of CVD risk score, blood pressure (BP), cholesterol or smoking status in primary health care, stratified by sex. Meta-analyses were performed, using random effects models, to determine differences between sexes, separately for adjusted and unadjusted data.Results: Of 14,928 studies found in the search, 22 studies (including 4,754,782 patients) were included in the systematic review with the meta-analysis for quantitative assessment. Overall, the assessment rates of CVD risk score and risk factors were similar in women and men (CVD risk score: 30.7% vs. 35.2% [difference (95% CI): -4.5 (-5.1, -3.9)]; BP: 91.3% vs. 88.5% [2.8 (2.5, 3.0)]; cholesterol: 69.9% vs. 71.0% [-1.1 (-1.5, -0.8)]; and smoking: 85.9% vs. 86.7% [-0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)]). The pooled, adjusted likelihood of having the risk score, BP and cholesterol assessments were comparable between women and men: OR (95% CI): 0.87 (0.70, 1.07); 1.41 (0.89, 2.25); and 1.15 (0.82, 1.60), respectively. However, women were 32% less likely to be assessed for smoking (0.68 [0.47, 1.00]). There was substantial heterogeneity between studies and the risk of publication bias was moderate.Conclusion: Despite the guideline recommendations, assessment of CVD risk score in primary health care was low in both sexes. Further, women were less likely to be assessed for their smoking status than men, whereas no sex discrepancies were found for BP and cholesterol assessments. [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]

Background To date there has been limited published data presenting the characteristics and timeliness of the management in an Emergency Department (ED) for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) patients presenting with chest pain. This study aimed to describe the presenting characteristics and processing times for CALD patients with chest pain compared to the Australian-born population, and current guidelines. Methods This study was a cross sectional analysis of a cohort of patients who presented with chest pain to the metropolitan hospital between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2014. Results Of the total study population (n = 6640), 1241 (18.7%) were CALD and 5399 (81.3%) were Australian-born. CALD patients were significantly older than Australian-born patients (mean age 62 vs 56 years, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the proportion of patients who had central chest pain (74.9% vs 75.7%, p = 0.526); ambulance utilisation (41.7% vs 41.1%, p = 0.697); and time to initial treatment in ED (21 vs 22 min, p = 0.375). However, CALD patients spent a significantly longer total time in ED (5.4 vs 4.3 h, p < 0.001). There was no difference in guideline concordance between the two groups with low rates of 12.5% vs 13%, p = 0.556. Nonetheless, CALD patients were 22% (95% CI, 0.65, 0.95, p = 0.015) less likely to receive the guideline management for chest pain. Conclusions The initial emergency care was equally provided to all patients in the context of a low rate of concordance with three chest pain related standards from the two guidelines. Nonetheless, CALD patients spent a longer time in ED compared to the Australian-born group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]