ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)2005
Reduced between-hospital variation in short term survival after acute myocardial infarction: the result of improved cardiac care?
Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01111071 (Variation Between Hospitals in Short-term Mortality After Acute Coronary Syndromes), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Variation Between Hospitals in Short-term Mortality After Acute Coronary Syndromes: A CALIBER Study
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of hospital variation in acute myocardial infarction care and outcome between Sweden and United Kingdom: population based cohort study using nationwide clinical registries.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2015Trial
- Guideline-Recommended Time Less Than 90 Minutes From ECG to Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Is Associated with Major Survival Benefits, Especially in Octogenarians: A Contemporary Report in 11 226 Patients from NORIC.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
- Trends and inequalities in short-term acute myocardial infarction case fatality in Scotland, 1988-2004.Population health metrics · 2010Article
- The changing face of acute myocardial infarction.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo re-examine interhospital variation in 30 day survival after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) 10 years on to see whether the appointment of new cardiologists and their involvement in emergency care has improved outcome after AMI.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingAcute hospitals in Scotland.
participants61,484 patients with a first AMI over two time periods: 1988-1991; and 1998-2001.
main outcome measures30 day survival.
resultsBetween 1988 and 1991, median 30 day survival was 79.2% (interhospital range 72.1-85.1%). The difference between highest and lowest was 13.0 percentage points (age and sex adjusted, 12.1 percentage points). Between 1998 and 2001, median survival rose to 81.6% (and range decreased to 78.0-85.6%) with a difference of 7.6 (adjusted 8.8) percentage points. Admission hospital was an independent predictor of outcome at 30 days during the two time periods (p < 0.001). Over the period 1988-1991, the odds ratio for death ranged, between hospitals, from 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.88) to 1.50 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.89) and for the period 1998-2001 from 0.82 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.13) to 1.46 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.99). The adjusted risk of death was significantly higher than average in nine of 26 hospitals between 1988 and 1991 but in only two hospitals between 1998 and 2001.
conclusionsThe average 30 day case fatality rate after admission with an AMI has fallen substantially over the past 10 years in Scotland. Between-hospital variation is also considerably less notable because of better survival in the previously poorly performing hospitals. This suggests that the greater involvement of cardiologists in the management of AMI has paid dividends.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.