Search

SummaryBackgroundInternational research for acute myocardial infarction lacks comparisons of whole health systems. We assessed time trends for care and outcomes in Sweden and the UK.MethodsWe used data from national registries on consecutive patients registered between 2004 and 2010 in all hospitals providing care for acute coronary syndrome in Sweden and the UK. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality 30 days after admission. We compared effectiveness of treatment by indirect casemix standardisation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01359033.FindingsWe assessed data for 119 786 patients in Sweden and 391 077 in the UK. 30-day mortality was 7·6% (95% CI 7·4–7·7) in Sweden and 10·5% (10·4–10·6) in the UK. Mortality was higher in the UK in clinically relevant subgroups defined by troponin concentration, ST-segment elevation, age, sex, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes mellitus status, and smoking status. In Sweden, compared with the UK, there was earlier and more extensive uptake of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (59% vs 22%) and more frequent use of β blockers at discharge (89% vs 78%). After casemix standardisation the 30-day mortality ratio for UK versus Sweden was 1·37 (95% CI 1·30–1·45), which corresponds to 11 263 (95% CI 9620–12 827) excess deaths, but did decline over time (from 1·47, 95% CI 1·38–1·58 in 2004 to 1·20, 1·12–1·29 in 2010; p=0·01).InterpretationWe found clinically important differences between countries in acute myocardial infarction care and outcomes. International comparisons research might help to improve health systems and prevent deaths.FundingSeventh Framework Programme for Research, National Institute for Health Research, Wellcome Trust (UK), Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation.

Refereed/Peer-reviewed Objectives: To study how handling missing data on M stage in a clinical cancer register affects estimates of incidence of metastatic prostate cancer. Study Design and Setting: Estimates of age-standardized incidence of metastatic prostate cancer were obtained by the use of data in a population-based clinical cancer register in Sweden and using four methods for imputation of missing M stage. Adjusted survival was used to compare men with known and imputed M stage. Results: The proportion of men with missing M stage was high (66%) and varied according to the risk group and over calendar time. The estimated incidence of metastatic disease varied depending on imputation method, with all methods indicating a decreasing incidence over time. A combination of deterministic imputation (DI) and multiple imputation (MI) produced adjusted survival curves for men with imputed M stage that best resembled the survival for men with known M stage. Conclusions: Plausible estimates of incidence of metastatic prostate cancer in clinical cancer registers can be obtained by the use of a combination of DI of missing M stage and MI.