PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Joynt, K E
AU  - Huynh, L
AU  - Amerena, J V
AU  - Brieger, D B
AU  - Coverdale, S G
AU  - Rankin, J M
AU  - Soman, A
AU  - Chew, D P
TI  - Impact of acute and chronic risk factors on use of evidence-based treatments in patients in Australia with acute coronary syndromes
AID  - 10.1136/hrt.2008.154781
DP  - 2009 Sep 01
TA  - Heart
PG  - 1442--1448
VI  - 95
IP  - 17
4099  - http://heart.bmj.com/content/95/17/1442.short
4100  - http://heart.bmj.com/content/95/17/1442.full
SO  - Heart2009 Sep 01; 95
AB  - Objective: To determine whether acute risk factors (ARF) and chronic risk factors (CRF) contribute differently to the use of evidence-based treatments (EBT) for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS).Design: Data were collected through a prospective audit of patients with ACS. Management was analysed by the presence of acute myocardial risk factors and chronic comorbid risk factors at presentation.Setting: 39 hospitals across Australia.Patients: 2599 adults presenting with ACS.Interventions: None.Main outcome measures: Use of EBT, in-hospital and 12-month death, recurrent myocardial infarction and bleeding.Results: The number of ARF and CRF at presentation predicted in-hospital and 12-month death, recurrent myocardial infarction and bleeding. Patients with higher numbers of ARF were more likely to receive EBT (aspirin at presentation, 81.1% for zero ARF to 85.7% for ⩾3 ARF, p<0.001; angiography 45.9% to 67.5%, p<0.001; reperfusion for ST elevation 50% to 70%, p = 0.392; β blocker at discharge 66.5% to 74.4%, p<0.001). Patients with higher numbers of CRF were less likely to receive EBT (aspirin at presentation 90.4% for zero CRF to 68.8% for ⩾4 CRF, p<0.001; angiography 78.8% to 24.7%, p<0.001; reperfusion for ST elevation 73.4% to 30%; p<0.001, β blocker at discharge 75.2% to 55.6%; p<0.001). In multivariate regression analysis, ARF and CRF were the strongest predictors of receiving or failing to receive EBT, respectively.Conclusions: Patients presenting with many ARF are more likely to receive EBT, while patients presenting with many CRF are less likely to receive them. This has important implications for future quality-improvement efforts.