Impact of acute and chronic risk factors on use of evidence-based treatments in patients in Australia with acute coronary syndromes. Issue 17 (20th May 2009)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Joynt, K E; Huynh, L; Amerena, J V; Brieger, D B; Coverdale, S G; Rankin, J M; Soman, A; Chew, D P
• Is Part Of: Heart. Volume 95:Issue 17(2009)
• Page Start: 1442
• Page End: 1448
• Publication Date: 2009-05-20
• Subjects: Heart -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Periodicals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2008.154781
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1355-6037

Abstract

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 ⩾3 ARF, p<0.001; angiography 45.9% to 67.5%, p<0.001; reperfusion for ST elevation 50% to 70%, p = 0.392; β 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 ⩾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, β 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.