Effect of age on the use of evidence-based therapies for acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have documented an underuse of evidence-based therapies in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, many of these studies failed to consider contraindications to therapy, the effect of age (ie, elderly vs non-elderly patients) on use, or both. The objective of this study was to determine whether elderly patients are less likely than non-elderly patients to receive evidence-based AMI treatments, both before and after the consideration of contraindications to therapy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of a random sample of 5131 patients with AMI who were admitted to 1 of 44 hospitals in Ontario was conducted for the fiscal years 1994 to 1996. Using the Canadian Cardiovascular Research Team (CCORT)/Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) Quality Indicators for AMI Care, we classified patients as being eligible or ideal (ie, no contraindications to treatment) candidates to receive aspirin, beta-blockers, thrombolysis, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), or statins or to undergo lipid profiling. The proportions of eligible and ideal patients who received treatment were calculated, and the latter were compared with benchmarks. RESULTS: The median age of the cohort was 69 years; 63% were of the patients were aged > or =65 years. There was underperformance of prescribing treatments in ideal candidates relative to benchmarks (eg, aspirin at discharge: 78.6% vs 90% benchmark). The odds of ideal (ie, no contraindications) elderly candidates receiving various evidence-based AMI treatments were consistently less than that of non-elderly patients with AMI, with the exception of ACEIs at discharge (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22-1.74). CONCLUSIONS: Despite adjustments for contraindications to therapy, the underuse of AMI treatments, particularly in elderly patients, was found.

CCORT/CCS quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction care.

BACKGROUND: Although quality indicators for the care of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients have been described for other countries, there are none specifically designed for the Canadian health care system. The authors' goal was to develop a set of Canadian quality indicators for AMI care. METHODS: A literature review identified existing quality indicators for AMI care. A list of potential indicators was assessed by a nine-member panel of clinicians from a variety of disciplines using a modified-Delphi panel process. After an initial round of rating the potential indicators, a series of indicators was identified for a second round of discussion at a national meeting. Further refinement of indicators occurred following a teleconference and review by external reviewers. RESULTS: To identify an AMI cohort, case definition criteria were developed, using a hospital discharge diagnosis for AMI of International Classification of Diseases-Ninth revision (ICD-9) code 410.x. Thirty-seven indicators for AMI care were established. Pharmacological process of care indicators included administration of acetylsalicylic acid, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, thrombolytics and statins. Mortality and readmissions for AMI, unstable angina and congestive heart failure were recommended as outcome indicators. Nonpharmacological indicators included median length of stay in the emergency department, and median waiting times for cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention and/or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. INTERPRETATION: A set of Canadian quality indicators for the care of AMI patients has been established. It is anticipated that these indicators will be useful to clinicians and researchers who want to measure and improve the quality of AMI patient care in Canada.