Literature DB >> 19460772

Impact of acute and chronic risk factors on use of evidence-based treatments in patients in Australia with acute coronary syndromes.

K E Joynt1, L Huynh, J V Amerena, D B Brieger, S G Coverdale, J M Rankin, A Soman, D P Chew.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether acute risk factors (ARF) and chronic risk factors (CRF) contribute differently to the use of evidence-based treatments (EBT) for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS).
DESIGN: Data were collected through a prospective audit of patients with ACS. Management was analysed by the presence of acute myocardial risk factors and chronic comorbid risk factors at presentation.
SETTING: 39 hospitals across Australia. PATIENTS: 2599 adults presenting with ACS.
INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of EBT, in-hospital and 12-month death, recurrent myocardial infarction and bleeding.
RESULTS: The number of ARF and CRF at presentation predicted in-hospital and 12-month death, recurrent myocardial infarction and bleeding. Patients with higher numbers of ARF were more likely to receive EBT (aspirin at presentation, 81.1% for zero ARF to 85.7% for > or =3 ARF, p<0.001; angiography 45.9% to 67.5%, p<0.001; reperfusion for ST elevation 50% to 70%, p = 0.392; beta blocker at discharge 66.5% to 74.4%, p<0.001). Patients with higher numbers of CRF were less likely to receive EBT (aspirin at presentation 90.4% for zero CRF to 68.8% for > or =4 CRF, p<0.001; angiography 78.8% to 24.7%, p<0.001; reperfusion for ST elevation 73.4% to 30%; p<0.001, beta blocker at discharge 75.2% to 55.6%; p<0.001). In multivariate regression analysis, ARF and CRF were the strongest predictors of receiving or failing to receive EBT, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting with many ARF are more likely to receive EBT, while patients presenting with many CRF are less likely to receive them. This has important implications for future quality-improvement efforts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19460772     DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2008.154781

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart        ISSN: 1355-6037            Impact factor:   5.994


  5 in total

1.  Trends in publications regarding evidence-practice gaps: a literature review.

Authors:  Ann E Evensen; Rob Sanson-Fisher; Catherine D'Este; Michael Fitzgerald
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2010-02-03       Impact factor: 7.327

2.  Objective Risk Assessment vs Standard Care for Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Derek P Chew; Karice Hyun; Erin Morton; Matt Horsfall; Graham S Hillis; Clara K Chow; Stephen Quinn; Mario D'Souza; Andrew T Yan; Chris P Gale; Shaun G Goodman; Keith Fox; David Brieger
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 14.676

Review 3.  Evidence-based interventions in primary care following acute coronary syndrome in Australia and New Zealand: a systematic scoping review.

Authors:  Manavi M Bhagwat; John A Woods; Mithilesh Dronavalli; Sandra J Hamilton; Sandra C Thompson
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 2.298

4.  Outcomes of anemic patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome: An analysis of the Cooperative National Registry of Acute Coronary Care, Guideline Adherence and Clinical Events.

Authors:  Ronald Huynh; Karice Hyun; Mario D'Souza; Nadarajah Kangaharan; Pratap C Shetty; Justin Mariani; Jens Kilian; Joseph Hung; Mark Ryan; Derek P Chew; David Brieger
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 2.882

5.  Evidence-practice gaps in P2Y12 inhibitor use after hospitalisation for acute myocardial infarction: findings from a new population-level data linkage in Australia.

Authors:  Michael O Falster; Andrea L Schaffer; Andrew Wilson; Arthur Nasis; Louisa R Jorm; Melanie Hay; Kira Leeb; Sallie-Anne Pearson; David Brieger
Journal:  Intern Med J       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 2.611

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.