Hospital variation in the use of secondary preventive medications after AMI decreased over time for beta-blockers and statins but increased for ACE inhibitors in Denmark between 1995 and 2004.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Observed variation trends should not change practice; leaves open drivers of inconsistent ACE inhibitor use post-AMI.
OBJECTIVE: To examine temporal trends in hospital use of secondary preventive medicine after discharge for first acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Denmark. DESIGN: Observational study from national administrative databases of 60,339 patients who survived a first AMI at 73 acute-care hospitals during 1995-2004. OUTCOME MEASURES: At least 1 prescription claim for angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, or statins within 90 days of discharge for AMI. FINDINGS: The odds ratios between hospitals in the highest and lowest deciles, adjusted for age, gender, period, income, comorbidity, concomitant, and prior pharmaceutical therapy, in 1995 were 8.5 [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.5-12.2] for beta-blockers, 3.0 (2.3-3.7) for ACE inhibitors, and 6.2 (4.1-8.8) for statins. By 2004, the hospital variation had decreased for beta-blockers (3.2; 2.3-4.0) and statins (4.2; 3.0-5.5) but had increased for ACE inhibitors (3.8; 2.7-4.9). All the changes over time were significant (P < 0.001). Geographical characteristics of the hospital explained 32% of the variation in use of beta-blockers in 2004 and 27% in 1995, 39% of the variation in use of ACE inhibitors in 2004 and 3% in 1995, and 29% of the variation in use of statins and 19% in 1995. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital use of secondary preventive medicine after discharge for AMI varied substantially. Hospital variation in use of beta-blockers and statins decreased with time whereas variation in use of ACE inhibitors increased. This may be attributed to gradually better agreement for the use of beta-blockers and statins and lesser agreement for the use of ACE inhibitors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rasmussen et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: