ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)2006
Impact of the National Service Framework for coronary heart disease on treatment and outcome of patients with acute coronary syndromes.
Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Evaluation of the Methods and Management of Acute Coronary Events (EMMACE)-3: protocol for a longitudinal study.BMJ open · 2015Observational
- The National Service Framework: six years on.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2006Article
- Impact of health care initiatives on outcomes of acute coronary syndromes.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the impact the National Service Framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease has had on emergency treatment and outcomes in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingCoronary care units of two district general hospitals.
resultsData from 3371 patients were recorded, 1993 patients in the 27 months before the introduction of the NSF and 1378 patients in the 24 months afterwards. After the introduction of the NSF in-hospital mortality was significantly reduced (95 patients (4.8%) v 43 (3.2%), p = 0.02). This was associated with a reduction in the development of Q wave myocardial infarction (40.6% v 33.3%, p < 0.0001) and in the incidence of left ventricular failure (15.9% v 12.3%, p = 0.003). The proportion of patients receiving thrombolysis increased (69.4% v 84.7%, p < 0.0001) with a decrease in the time taken to receive it (proportion thrombolysed within 20 minutes 12.1% v 26.6%, p < 0.0001). The prescription of beta blockers (51.9% v 65.8%, p < 0.0001), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (37% v 66.4%, p < 0.0001), and statins (55.2% v 72.7%, p < 0.0001) improved and the proportion of patients referred for invasive investigation increased (18.3% v 27.0%, p < 0.0001). Trend analysis showed that improvements in mortality and thrombolysis were directly associated with publication of the NSF, whereas the improvements seen in prescription of beta blockers and statins were the continuation of pre-existing trends.
conclusionsIn the two years that followed publication of the NSF the initial treatment and outcome of patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes improved. Some of the improvements can be attributed to the NSF but others are continuations of pre-existing trends.
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.