An Australian comparison of specialist care of acute myocardial infarction

Objective. To determine whether patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in an Australian setting receive better pharmacological care if managed by cardiologists than by non-cardiologists. Design. Retrospective chart review of patients hospitalized between 1 January 1997 and 30 June 1998, undertaken by abstractors blind to study objectives. Setting. One tertiary and two community hospitals in south-east Queensland, Australia, in which all patients admitted with AMI were cared for by cardiologists and general physicians, respectively. Study participants. Two cohorts of consecutive patients satisfying diagnostic criteria for AMI: 184 in the tertiary hospital and 207 in the community hospitals. Main outcome measures. Frequency of use, in highly eligible patients, of thrombolysis, P-blockers, aspirin, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, lipid-lowering agents, nitrates, and calcium antagonists. Cohorts were compared for differences in prognostic factors or illness severity. Results. In community hospital patients, there was greater use of thrombolysis [100% versus 83% in the tertiary hospital; difference 17%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 11-26%; P < 0.001] and of ACE inhibitors (84% versus 66%; difference 18%, 95% CI 3-34%; P = 0.02), and lower median length of stay (6.0 days versus 7.0 days; P = 0.001) compared with tertiary hospital patients. Frequency of use of other drugs, and adjusted rates of death and re-infarction were the same for both cohorts. Conclusions. With respect to pharmacological management of patients hospitalized with AMI, cardiologists and general physicians appear to provide care of similar quality and achieve equivalent outcomes. Further studies are required to confirm the generalizability of these results to Australian practice as a whole.

Reduced between-hospital variation in short term survival after acute myocardial infarction: the result of improved cardiac care?

Objectives: To re-examine interhospital variation in 30 day survival after acute myocardial infarction ( AMI) 10 years on to see whether the appointment of new cardiologists and their involvement in emergency care has improved outcome after AMI. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Acute hospitals in Scotland. Participants: 61 484 patients with a first AMI over two time periods: 1988 - 1991; and 1998 - 2001. Main outcome measures: 30 day survival. Results: Between 1988 and 1991, median 30 day survival was 79.2% ( interhospital range 72.1 - 85.1%). The difference between highest and lowest was 13.0 percentage points ( age and sex adjusted, 12.1 percentage points). Between 1998 and 2001, median survival rose to 81.6% ( and range decreased to 78.0 - 85.6%) with a difference of 7.6 ( adjusted 8.8) percentage points. Admission hospital was an independent predictor of outcome at 30 days during the two time periods ( p< 0.001). Over the period 1988 - 1991, the odds ratio for death ranged, between hospitals, from 0.71 ( 95% confidence interval ( CI) 0.58 to 0.88) to 1.50 ( 95% CI 1.19 to 1.89) and for the period 1998 - 2001 from 0.82 ( 95% CI 0.60 to 1.13) to 1.46 ( 95% CI 1.07 to 1.99). The adjusted risk of death was significantly higher than average in nine of 26 hospitals between 1988 and 1991 but in only two hospitals between 1998 and 2001. Conclusions: The average 30 day case fatality rate after admission with an AMI has fallen substantially over the past 10 years in Scotland. Between-hospital variation is also considerably less notable because of better survival in the previously poorly performing hospitals. This suggests that the greater involvement of cardiologists in the management of AMI has paid dividends.