Key result
Guideline-discordant care for acute myocardial infarction was associated with higher inhospital mortality compared to concordant care (12.0% vs 4.6%; adjusted OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.22-4.82).
Why the study?
Does guideline-discordant care increase inhospital mortality and reinfarction in patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=607)
Yes
Does guideline-discordant care increase inhospital mortality and reinfarction in patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction?
Receiving care that is discordant with clinical practice guidelines for acute myocardial infarction significantly increases the risk of inhospital mortality.
Supports guideline adherence in AMI; observational data leave causal effects and practice change open to trials.
OBJECTIVES: To determine (i) factors which predict whether patients hospitalised with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) receive care discordant with recommendations of clinical practice guidelines; and (ii) whether such discordant care results in worse outcomes compared with receiving guideline-concordant care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two community general hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 607 consecutive patients admitted with AMI between July 1997 and December 2000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical predictors of discordant care; crude and risk-adjusted rates of inhospital mortality and reinfarction, and mean length of hospital stay. RESULTS: At least one treatment recommendation for AMI was applicable for 602 of the 607 patients. Of these patients, 411(68%) received concordant care, and 191 (32%) discordant care. Positive predictors at presentation of discordant care were age > 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% CI, 1.7-3.6), silent infarction (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.6-4.6), anterior infarction (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.7-3.8), a history of heart failure (OR, 6.3; 95% CI, 3.7-10.7), chronic atrial fibrillation (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.5-6.4); and heart rate >/= 100 beats/min (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4-3.1). Death occurred in 12.0% (23/191) of discordant-care patients versus 4.6% (19/411) of concordant-care patients (adjusted OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.22-4.82). Mortality was inversely related to the level of guideline concordance (P = 0.03). Reinfarction rates also tended to be higher in the discordant-care group (4.2% v 1.7%; adjusted OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 0.90-7.1). CONCLUSIONS: Certain clinical features at presentation predict a higher likelihood of guideline-discordant care in patients presenting with AMI. Such care appears to increase the risk of inhospital death.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Scott et al. (2002) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction (n=607). Guideline-discordant care vs. Guideline-concordant care was evaluated on Inhospital mortality (adjusted OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.22-4.82). Guideline-discordant care for acute myocardial infarction was associated with higher inhospital mortality compared to concordant care (12.0% vs 4.6%; adjusted OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.22-4.82).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: