Acute Coronary Syndrome patients in New Zealand receive less invasive management when admitted to hospitals without invasive facilities
NZ Literature Abstract
posted by Research Admin on 5 May 2010
Authors
Chris J. Ellis
Gerard Devlin
P. Matsis
John M. Elliott
Michael Williams
Greg D. Gamble
Stewart Mann
J. K. French
Harvey D. White
Year of Publication
2004
Source
The New Zealand Medical Journal, 117(1197)
Publication Type
Journal article (peer reviewed)
Publication Status
Completed
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare differences in the presentation and management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients presenting to interventional versus non-interventional New Zealand hospitals. The authors assessed the data collected by the New Zealand Cardiac Society ACS Audit Group over 14 days from each hospital in New Zealand (n=36) that admits ACS patients. Patient management at intervention centres (5 public, 3 private) was compared with non-intervention centres (28 public). Investigations and revascularisation procedures performed on transferred patients were ‘attributed’ to the referring centre. From 0000 hours on 13 May 2002 to 2400 hours on 26 May 2002, 930 patients were admitted to a New Zealand hospital with a suspected or definite ACS: ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] (11%), non-STEMI (31%), unstable angina pectoris [UAP] (36%), or another cardiac or medical diagnosis (22%). Patients admitted to a non-intervention centre (n=612) were the same age (median 70 years) with similar risk factors, but were more likely to be Maori (8.2% vs 3.8%, p=0.0063) and were less likely to have a history of prior cardiac angiography (26% vs 28%, p=0.02) or percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] (9.6% vs 14%, p=0.03) than patients admitted to an intervention centre (n=318). Patients admitted to a non-intervention centre were more likely to have a chest X-ray (88% vs 81%, p<0.0024), as likely to have an exercise treadmill test (20% vs 22%, p=0.39), but less likely to receive an echocardiogram (17% vs 26%, p<0.0005), a cardiac angiogram (17% vs 30%, p<0.0001), or neither a treadmill nor a cardiac angiogram (68% vs 53%, p<0.0001) for cardiac risk assessment. For patients with a definite ACS presentation (STEMI, Non-STEMI, UAP, n=721), PCI was performed less often for patients admitted to non-intervention centres: 3% vs 14% (p <0.0001), although the rate of coronary artery bypass grafting was similar: 3% vs 5% (p=0.16). The authors conclude that patients admitted to a hospital without cardiac interventional facilities receive fewer investigations and less revascularisation than patients admitted to Intervention Centres. Hence patients admitted with an acute coronary syndrome in New Zealand receive inequitable management. They go on to say that a comprehensive national strategy is needed to improve access to optimal cardiac care.
Type of Study
Audit, Analysis, Quantitative