Statistics on mortality following acute myocardial infarction in 842,897 Europeans.

AIMS: To compare ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) mortality between Sweden and the UK, adjusting for background population rates of expected death, case mix and treatments. METHODS AND RESULTS: National data were collected from hospitals in Sweden (n = 73 hospitals, 180,368 patients, Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies [SWEDEHEART]) and the UK (n = 247, 662,529 patients, Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project [MINAP]) between 2003 and 2013. There were lower rates of revascularisation [STEMI (43.8% vs. 74.9%); NSTEMI (27.5% vs 43.6%)] and pharmacotherapies at time of hospital discharge including [aspirin (82.9% vs. 90.2%) and (79.9% vs. 88.0%), β-blockers (73.4% vs. 86.4%) and (65.3% vs. 85.1%)] in the UK compared with Sweden, respectively. Standardised net probability of death (NPD) between admission and 1 month was higher in the UK for STEMI (8.0 [95% confidence interval 7.4-8.5] vs. 6.7 [6.5-6.9]) and NSTEMI (6.8 [6.4-7.2] vs. 4.9 [4.7-5.0]). Between 6 months and 1 year and more than 1 year, NPD remained higher in the UK for NSTEMI (2.9 [2.5-3.3] vs. 2.3 [2.2-2.5]) and (21.4 [20.0-22.8] vs. 18.3 [17.6-19.0]), but was similar for STEMI (0.7 [0.4-1.0] vs. 0.9 [0.7-1.0]) and (8.4 [6.7-10.1] vs. 8.3 [7.5-9.1]). CONCLUSION: Short-term mortality following STEMI and NSTEMI was higher in the UK compared with Sweden. Mid- and longer-term mortality remained higher in the UK for NSTEMI, but was similar for STEMI.Differences in mortality may be due to differential use of guideline-indicated treatments

Impact of a Prior Cancer Diagnosis on Quality of Care and Survival Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: Retrospective Population-Based Cohort Study in England

Background: An increasing proportion of patients with cancer experience acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We investigated differences in quality of AMI care and survival between patients with and without previous cancer diagnoses. Methods: A retrospective cohort study using Virtual Cardio-Oncology Research Initiative data. Patients aged 40+ years hospitalized in England with AMI between January 2010 and March 2018 were assessed, ascertaining previous cancers diagnosed within 15 years. Multivariable regression was used to assess effects of cancer diagnosis, time, stage, and site on international quality indicators and mortality. Results: Of 512 388 patients with AMI (mean age, 69.3 years; 33.5% women), 42 187 (8.2%) had previous cancers. Patients with cancer had significantly lower use of ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (mean percentage point decrease [mppd], 2.6% [95% CI, 1.8–3.4]) and lower overall composite care (mppd, 1.2% [95% CI, 0.9–1.6]). Poorer quality indicator attainment was observed in patients with cancer diagnosed in the last year (mppd, 1.4% [95% CI, 1.8–1.0]), with later stage disease (mppd, 2.5% [95% CI, 3.3–1.4]), and with lung cancer (mppd, 2.2% [95% CI, 3.0–1.3]). Twelve-month all-cause survival was 90.5% in noncancer controls and 86.3% in adjusted counterfactual controls. Differences in post-AMI survival were driven by cancer-related deaths. Modeling improving quality indicator attainment to noncancer patient levels showed modest 12-month survival benefits (lung cancer, 0.6%; other cancers, 0.3%). Conclusions: Measures of quality of AMI care are poorer in patients with cancer, with lower use of secondary prevention medications. Findings are primarily driven by differences in age and comorbidities between cancer and noncancer populations and attenuated after adjustment. The largest impact was observed in recent cancer diagnoses (<1 year) and lung cancer. Further investigation will determine whether differences reflect appropriate management according to cancer prognosis or whether opportunities to improve AMI outcomes in patients with cancer exist.</p

Protocol for the development of the Wales Multimorbidity e-Cohort (WMC): Data sources and methods to construct a population-based research platform to investigate multimorbidity

Introduction Multimorbidity is widely recognised as the presence of two or more concurrent long-term conditions, yet remains a poorly understood global issue despite increasing in prevalence. We have created the Wales Multimorbidity e-Cohort (WMC) to provide an accessible research ready data asset to further the understanding of multimorbidity. Our objectives are to create a platform to support research which would help to understand prevalence, trajectories and determinants in multimorbidity, characterise clusters that lead to highest burden on individuals and healthcare services, and evaluate and provide new multimorbidity phenotypes and algorithms to the National Health Service and research communities to support prevention, healthcare planning and the management of individuals with multimorbidity. Methods and analysis The WMC has been created and derived from multisourced demographic, administrative and electronic health record data relating to the Welsh population in the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. The WMC consists of 2.9 million people alive and living in Wales on the 1 January 2000 with follow-up until 31 December 2019, Welsh residency break or death. Published comorbidity indices and phenotype code lists will be used to measure and conceptualise multimorbidity. Study outcomes will include: (1) a description of multimorbidity using published data phenotype algorithms/ontologies, (2) investigation of the associations between baseline demographic factors and multimorbidity, (3) identification of temporal trajectories of clusters of conditions and multimorbidity and (4) investigation of multimorbidity clusters with poor outcomes such as mortality and high healthcare service utilisation. Ethics and dissemination The SAIL Databank independent Information Governance Review Panel has approved this study (SAIL Project: 0911). Study findings will be presented to policy groups, public meetings, national and international conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals