The 2011 outcome from the Swedish Health Care Registry on Heart Disease (SWEDEHEART).

OBJECTIVES: The Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART) collects data to support the improvement of care for heart disease. DESIGN: SWEDEHEART collects on-line data from consecutive patients treated at any coronary care unit n = (74), followed for secondary prevention, undergoing any coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, percutaneous valve or cardiac surgery. The registry is governed by an independent steering committee, the software is developed by Uppsala Clinical Research Center and it is funded by The Swedish national health care provider independent of industry support. Approximately 80,000 patients per year enter the database which consists of more than 3 million patients. RESULTS: Base-line, procedural, complications and discharge data consists of several hundred variables. The data quality is secured by monitoring. Outcomes are validated by linkage to other registries such as the National Cause of Death Register, the National Patient Registry, and the National Registry of Drug prescriptions. Thanks to the unique social security number provided to all citizens follow-up is complete. The 2011 outcomes with special emphasis on patients more than 80 years of age are presented. CONCLUSION: SWEDEHEART is a unique complete national registry for heart disease.

Intrusion and confusion--the impact of medication and health professionals after acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Secondary prevention is important in preventing new cardiovascular events after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). AIM: To explore patients' experiences of secondary prevention after a first AMI. METHODS: A qualitative approach with hermeneutical analysis of in depth interviews was used. RESULTS: Twenty patients (12 men and 8 women, aged 34-79 years) were interviewed. None of the patients was previously treated for cardiovascular disease except one that had a history of angina pectoris. Two main themes emerged from the analysis. 1) Impact of medication: patients interpreted bodily sensations as a consequence of being medicated rather than as a result of their heart attack. The medication led to feelings of being intruded upon but also to positive feelings of security. 2) Impact of health professionals: communication with health professionals resulted in confusion about both treatment and the severity of the coronary disease. Patients expressed a need of being reassured by their physician regarding their physical status. CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals need to consider the impact of pharmacological treatment on patients' life, at least in patients who suffer from a first AMI. The point of departure in secondary preventive work must be patients' beliefs about their condition and the treatment they receive. Nurses and physicians must be aware of the information each patient has been given, and from this starting point, they have to be in concordance with one another. From the patients' perspective it is deemed necessary for the physicians to discuss the disease and the consequences it may have, both in the near future and in the long run, as soon as possible.

Smoking habits and predictors of continued smoking in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with acute coronary syndrome quit smoking when hospitalized, although several have been found to relapse and resume smoking within 3 months. AIM: This paper reports a study to identify factors that can predict who will resume smoking after hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: Patients (n = 1320) below the age of 75 years, admitted to a Swedish university hospital coronary care unit with acute coronary syndromes, between September 1995 and September 1999, were consecutively included. Data were collected from hospital medical records and included information on previous clinical history, former illnesses and smoking. During their hospitalization, an experienced nurse interviewed the patients by using a structured questionnaire to obtain additional information. Patients were followed up 3 months after the discharge. Those who continued to smoke (non-quitters) were compared with those who had stopped (quitters) with regard to age, sex, medical history, clinical course, and intention to quit. To identify factors independently related to continued smoking, a logistical regression in a formal forward stepwise mode was used. RESULTS: Of the patients admitted, 33% were current smokers. Three months after discharge, 51% of these patients were still smoking. There were no significant differences in age, gender or marital status between non-quitters and quitters. In a multivariate analysis, independent predictors of continued smoking were: non-participation in the heart rehabilitation programme (P = 0.0008); use of sedatives/antidepressants at time of admission (P = 0.001); history of cerebral vascular disease (P = 0.002), history of previous cardiac event (P = 0.01); history of smoking-related pulmonary disease (P = 0.03) and cigarette consumption at index (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking patients who do not participate in a heart rehabilitation programme may need extra help with smoking cessation. The findings may provide means of identifying patients in need of special intervention.