Pilot register of acute myocardial infarction – a 5‑year evaluation of quality of care in non‑PCI hospitals

Česká verzia

Authors: Z. Monhart ¹; H. Grünfeldová ²; P. Janský ³; J. Zvárová ⁴; V. Faltus ⁴
Authors place of work: Interní oddělení Nemocnice Znojmo, přednosta prim. MUDr. Jan Sedláček ¹; Interní oddělení a Centrum biomedicínské informatiky Městské nemocnice Čáslav, přednostka prim. MUDr. Hana Grünfeldová ²; Kardiovaskulární centrum pro dospělé pacienty Kardiochirurgické kliniky 2. lékařské fakulty a FN Motol Praha, přednosta doc. MUDr. Marek Šetina, CSc. ³; Centrum biomedicínské informatiky, Ústav informatiky AV ČR v. v. i., Praha, vedoucí prof. RNDr. Jana Zvárová, DrSc. ⁴
Published in the journal: Vnitř Lék 2010; 56(1): 21-29
Category: Original Contributions

Summary

Introduction:
The aim of this research was to describe (demographic data and cardiovascular disease risk factors) a non‑selected patient population with acute myocardial infarction and to evaluate the applied diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

Patients and methods:
Data on 3,184 cases of acute myocardial infarction from non‑PCI hospitals in Čáslav, Chrudim, Jindřichův Hradec, Kutná Hora, Písek and Znojmo were entered in a pilot register between 2003 and 2007.

Results:
ST elevation myocardial infarctions represented 28.5% of registered cases; primary reperfusion was indicated in 68.3% of these cases. Coronarography was indicated in 43.8% of patients in the non‑ST elevation myocardial infarction subgroup. When evaluating pharmacotherapy administered during the first 24 hours following admission, a statistically significant increase in pharmacotherapy administration over the 5 years of register existence was observed (the most apparent for clopidrogel – increase from 24.6% to 63.3%). Analysis of medication recommended for use at discharge also revealed significant increase in administration of the recommended medication over the 5 years in all evaluated drug groups – the most significant, once again, for thienopyridines (increase from 34.9% to 49.6%). In-hospital mortality decreased over the 5 years from 15.2% in 2003 to 8.0% in 2007.

Conclusion:
The 5‑year evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic approaches applied in patients with acute myocardial infarction in non‑PCI hospitals confirmed improvement in care provided, specifically improved adherence to pharmacotherapy as well as interventional treatment guidelines pertinent to this patient group. Together with increased quality of care, we observed a decline in in‑hospital mortality of patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Key words:
acute myocardial infarction – register – risk factors – quality of care – pharmacotherapy – interventional treatment

Zdroje

1. ÚZIS ČR, Aktuální informace č. 13/2007.

2. Lee PY, Alexander KP, Hammill BG et al. Representation of elderly persons and women in published randomized trials of acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 2001; 286: 708–713.

3. Fox KAA. Registries and surveys in acute coronary syndrome. Eur Heart J 2006; 27: 2260–2262.

4. Bradley EH, Herrin J, Mattera JA et al. Quality improvement efforts and hospital performance: rates of beta‑blocker prescription after acute myocardial infarction. Med Care 2005; 43: 182–192.

5. Bassand JP, Hamm CW, Ardissino D et al. Task Force for Diagnosis and Treatment of Non-ST‑Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes of European Society of Cardiology. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of non‑ST‑segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2007; 28: 1598–1660.

6. Bělohlávek J, Aschermann M. Doporučený postup pro diagnostiku a léčbu akutních koronárních syndromů bez elevací ST úseků na EKG. Vnitř Lék 2008; 54 (Suppl 1): S7–S23.

7. Toušek F, Jelínek P, Vácha M et al. Léčba infarktu myokardu s elevacemi ST v srdci Evropy – analýza Jihočeského koronárního registru. Interv Akut Kardiol 2004; 3: 181–184.

8. Widimsky P, Zelizko M, Jansky P et al. CZECH investigators. The incidence, treatment strategies and outcomes of acute coronary syndromes in the “reperfusion network” of different hospital types in the Czech Republic: results of the Czech evaluation of acute coronary syndromes in hospitalized patients (CZECH) registry. Int J Cardiol 2007; 119: 212–219.

9. The Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee. Myocardial infarction redefined – a consensus document of The Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2000; 21: 1502–1513.

10. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, White HD. Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Task Force for the Redefinition of Myocardial Infarction. Universal definition of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2007; 28: 2525–2538.

11. Hasdai D, Behar S, Wallentin L et al. A prospective survey of the characteristics, treatments and outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes in Europe and the Meditterean basin. The Euro Heart Survey of Acute Coronary Syndromes. Eur Heart J 2002; 23: 1190–1201.

12. Mandelzweig L, Battler A, Boyko V et al. The second Euro Heart Survey on acute coronary syndromes: Characteristics, treatment, and outcome of patients with ACS in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin in 2004. Eur Heart J 2006; 27: 2285–2293.

13. Birkhead JS, Weston C, Lowe D. Impact of specialty of admitting physician and type of hospital on care and outcome for myocardial infarction in England and Wales during 2004–5: observational study. BMJ 2006; 332: 1306–1311.

14. Kalla K, Christ G, Karnik R et al. Implementation of guidelines improves the standard of care. The Viennese registry on reperfusion strategies in ST‑elevation myocardial infarction (Vienna STEMI registry). Circulation 2006; 113: 2398–2405.

15. Zeymer U, Gitt A, Winkler R et al. Mortality of patients who are older than 75 years after ST elevation myocardial infarction in clinical practice. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2005; 130: 633–636.

16. The GRACE Investigators: GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events): a multinational registry of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J 2001; 141: 190–199.

17. Montalescot G, Dallongeville J, Van Belle E et al. for the OPERA Investigators. STEMI and NSTEMI: are they so different? 1 year outcomes in acute myocardial infarction as defined by the ESC/ACC definition (the OPERA registry). Eur Heart J 2007; 28: 1409–1417.

18. Alexander KP, Galanos AN, Jollis JG et al. Post‑myocardial infarction risk stratification in elderly patients. Am Heart J 2001; 142: 37–42.

19. Jneid H, Fonarow GC, Cannon CP et al. Sex differences in medical care and early death after acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2008; 118: 2803–2810.

20. Norhammar A, Lindbäck J, Rydén L et al. Improved but still high short- and long‑term mortality rates after myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes mellitus: a time-trend report from the Swedish register of information and knowledge about Swedish heart intensive care admission. Heart 2007; 93: 1577–1583.

21. Lev EI, Kornowski R, Vaknin‑Assa H et al. Effect of previous treatment with statins on outcome of patients with ST‑segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2009; 103: 165–169.

22. Andrikopoulos GK, Richter DJ, Dilaveris PE et al. In-hospital mortality of habitual cigarette smokers after acute myocardial infarction; the “smoker’s paradox” in a countrywide study. Eur Heart J 2001; 22: 776–784.

23. Weisz G, Cox DA, Garcia E et al. Impact of smoking status on outcomes of primary coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction – the smoker’s paradox revisited. Am Heart J 2005; 150: 358–364.