Key result
A nurse-led outpatient follow-up model following acute coronary syndrome resulted in similar rates of a composite of one-year mortality and rehospitalization (HR 0.93) compared to medical follow-up alone.
Why the study?
The study aimed to compare quality of care and outcomes between post-ACS patients managed under a nurse-led, cardiologist-supported outpatient model versus a medical-only follow-up clinic model.
Does a nurse-led, cardiologist-supported follow-up model improve quality of care and clinical outcomes compared to a medical-only follow-up model in patients post-acute coronary syndrome?
Cohort (n=4,395)
No
Does a nurse-led, cardiologist-supported follow-up model improve quality of care and clinical outcomes compared to a medical-only follow-up model in patients post-acute coronary syndrome?
Hazard Ratio: 0.93 (95% CI 0.78–1.11)
Absolute Event Rate: 14.8% vs 15.2%
p-value: p=0.409
A nurse-led post-ACS follow-up model is as safe and effective as a medical-only model, achieving similar one-year clinical outcomes while providing earlier access to follow-up.
Nurse-led post-ACS follow-up was associated with comparable safety and efficacy; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before changing practice.
BACKGROUND: At Middlemore Hospital, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients are admitted under the care of one of seven cardiologists working on a weekly rotation. Between 2010 and 2018 patients under the care of three of the cardiologists were followed up in a "medical only" post-ACS follow-up clinic model where the cardiologist or registrar saw all patients. Those admitted under the other four cardiologists were seen in a "nurse-led, cardiologist-supported" follow-up model where the majority of patients were seen by a nurse specialist. The study aim was to compare quality of care and outcomes between patients managed under these two follow-up clinic models. METHOD: The ANZACS-QI registry was used to identify all ACS admissions, 2010 to 2018. The ANZACS-QI records for 5296 patients, discharged alive, were anonymously linked with hospital clinic follow-up and national administrative datasets. Time to follow-up, medication dispensation and titration and one-year clinical outcomes were compared for the two follow-up models. RESULTS: Characteristics of patients managed under each model were similar. 4395 patients attended follow up, 74% in the nurse-led model. At one year there were no differences between the medical- and nurse-led cohorts in all-cause mortality (4.6% vs 3.9, p=0.29), rehospitalisations for myocardial infarction (MI) (9.2% vs 8.3%, p=0.31), stroke (1.2% vs 1.4% p=0.71), heart failure (5.7% vs 6.9%, p=0.15) or a combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and/or rehospitalisation for MI/stroke/HF (15.2% vs 14.8%, p=0.71). Patients were seen earlier post-discharge in the nurse-led model, (mean 83 vs 101 days). Medication dispensation one year post-discharge was similar for both models of care. CONCLUSION: The nurse-led model is associated with earlier access to follow-up, was equally as effective at maintaining secondary prevention pharmacotherapy and associated with similar survival and readmission with non-fatal ACS/stroke/heart failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Acute Coronary Syndrome (n=4,395). Nurse-led, cardiologist-supported follow-up model vs. Medical-only follow-up model was evaluated on Composite of one-year all-cause mortality and/or rehospitalisation for MI/stroke/HF (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78-1.11, p=0.409). A nurse-led outpatient follow-up model following acute coronary syndrome resulted in similar rates of a composite of one-year mortality and rehospitalization (HR 0.93) compared to medical follow-up alone.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: