Objective To compare temporal changes in European Society of Cardiology (ESC) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) quality indicator (QI) attainment in the UK and Israel.
Methods Data cross-walking using information from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project and the Acute Coronary Syndrome in Israel Survey for matching 2-month periods in 2006, 2010 and 2013 was used to compare country-specific attainment of 14 ESC AMI QIs.
Results Patients in the UK (n=17 068) compared with Israel (n=5647) were older, more likely to be women, and had less diabetes, dyslipidaemia and heart failure. Baseline ischaemic risk was lower in Israel than the UK (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk, 110.5 vs 121.0). Overall, rates of coronary angiography (87.6% vs 64.8%) and percutaneous coronary intervention (70.3% vs 41.0%) were higher in Israel compared with the UK. Composite QI performance increased more in the UK (1.0%–86.0%) than Israel (70.2%–78.0%). Mortality rates at 30 days declined in each country, with lower rates in Israel in 2013 (4.2% vs 7.6%). Composite QI adherence adjusted for GRACE risk score was inversely associated with 30-day mortality (OR 0.95; CI 0.95 to 0.97, p<0.001).
Conclusions International comparisons of guideline recommended AMI care and outcomes can be quantified using the ESC AMI QIs. International implementation of the ESC AMI QIs may reveal country-specific opportunities for improved healthcare delivery.
- acute myocardial infarction
- quality and outcomes of care
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Contributors OZ, OB, ZI and CPG have contributed to the conception or design of the work. OZ, OB, TBD, MH, ZI, CPG and AT have contributed to the acquisition of data. OZ, OB, ZI, CPG, RK, FS, AT and KAAF have contributed to analysis or interpretation of data. OZ, OB, CPG, ZI agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All authors took part in drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and all authors gave final approval of the version published.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.