Resuscitated cardiac arrest and prognosis following myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether resuscitated cardiac arrest (CA) complicating ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) impacts outcome, particularly in patients surviving to discharge. BACKGROUND: Resuscitated CA complicating STEMI is associated with increased inpatient mortality. The impact on later prognosis is unclear. METHODS: We analysed data from the UK Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project for STEMI patients admitted during January 2008-March 2010. We used survival analyses to assess the independent impact of resuscitated CA during the index episode on inhospital, 30 days, 1 year and medium term all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 48 749 STEMI patients, 5308 (10.9%) were recorded as having a CA. Of these, 1557 (29.3%) died on the day of CA. In survivors, after covariate adjustment, resuscitated CA was associated with increased risk of death during the index admission (HR 4.05 (3.69 to 4.45) p<0.001). In patients surviving to discharge, a history of resuscitated CA was associated with increased risk of death to 30 days (HR 1.53 (1.18 to 2.00), p<0.001). However, beyond 30 days, resuscitated CA was not associated with increased mortality risk (1-year HR 0.95 (0.79 to 1.14, p=0.596); 3.5 years HR 0.90 (0.78 to 1.04), p=0.144). The influence of resuscitated CA on inhospital or 30-day mortality was similar whether CA occurred before or after hospital admission. Where the resuscitated CA rhythm was asystole, inhospital mortality was higher compared with ventricular arrhythmia (p<0.001) or pulseless electrical activity (p=0.011). Late resuscitated CA (occurring after the day of index STEMI) was associated with higher 30-day postdischarge mortality compared with early resuscitated CA (p=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: STEMI complicated by resuscitated CA merits careful monitoring in the early period postevent. In contemporary practice, there is no impact of resuscitated CA on longer-term prognosis.

The importance of audit to monitor applications of procedures and improve primary angioplasty results.

Although clinical trials have demonstrated that primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) provides better outcomes than thrombolysis for STEMI, it cannot be assumed that similar results can be obtained in day-to-day practice. To determine whether standards are being met, continuous audit of PPCI programmes is necessary, with appropriate feedback to participating centres and operators. Both the MINAP and BCIS national audit projects allow central electronic collection of data on consecutive patients presenting to every hospital involved in the acute management of these patients. Regular programmed feedback is provided to centres performing primary PCI that attempts to take account of statistical variation and differences in case mix between units by making use of funnel plots, statistical process control graphs and risk adjustment models. This reporting of "process" and "outcome" data, both confidentially and within the public domain, has been used to drive up clinical performance and has been associated with steady improvements and reduced inequalities of care.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To examine process of care and outcome for patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction to hospitals in England and Wales in relation to type of consultant care and type of hospital. DESIGN: Observational study of 88,782 patients admitted with myocardial infarction during 2004-5, using records from the national audit of myocardial infarction project (MINAP) database. OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of reperfusion treatment and secondary prevention drugs, use of angiography, and 90 day mortality of patients admitted under the care of cardiologists and non-cardiologists in hospitals with and without facilities for coronary intervention. FINDINGS: 36% of patients were admitted under the care of a cardiologist and 20% to a hospital with coronary interventional facilities. Patients admitted under cardiologists had fewer comorbidities than other patients and were more likely to have reperfusion treatment (12,266/14,433 (85%) v 13,682/17,064 (80%)) and appropriate secondary prevention drugs. Overall, 27,431/79,374 (35%) of patients had angiography. Relatively more patients admitted to interventional hospitals (8167/14,661; 56%) than to other hospitals had angiography (19,264/64,713; 30%). The adjusted risk of death by 90 days for patients treated in interventional compared with non-interventional hospitals was 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.06). The adjusted risk of death at 90 days for patients admitted under cardiologists compared with non-cardiologists was 0.86 (0.81 to 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Patients cared for by cardiologists had less comorbidity than other patients. They were more likely to receive proved treatments and angiography, and they had a lower adjusted 90 day mortality. Large differences existed in the use of angiography between interventional and non-interventional hospitals. These findings show wide variations in the management and outcome of patients with myocardial infarction in England and Wales.

Developing a rapid access chest pain clinic: qualitative studies of patients' needs and experiences.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to understand the needs and experiences of rapid access chest pain clinic attenders and to determine the acceptability and effectiveness of simple procedural changes. METHODS: Two qualitative studies of clinic attenders before and after procedural changes which were guided by the first study. RESULTS: Study 1: Patients wanted to be reassured, by knowing what was causing their pain, understanding the cause, and feeling able to help themselves. Often, these needs were not met, and uncertainties left some patients feeling ill-equipped to help themselves. Communication problems were identified. Study 2: The changes were acceptable to patients, and almost all were reassured. Most valued receiving extra verbal and written advice and information. Many felt more aware of cardiac risk factors and intended to change their lifestyle. CONCLUSION: There were clear opportunities for improvements in care. Changes in procedures helped patients to understand their pain, to practice self-management, and to consider altering their lifestyle.