An evaluation of the relationship between specialist training in cardiology and implementation of evidence-based care of patients following acute myocardial infarction.

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Large clinical trials have provided evidence of prognostically beneficial treatment strategies for patients with acute myocardial infarction. However, the implementation of this evidence into routine clinical practice is suboptimal. We hypothesised that the speciality of the attending physician (cardiologist or not) would affect the use of evidence-based strategies. METHODS: Over a 3-month period (1st September to 30th November 1995), 3684 consecutive potential cases of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in 20 adjacent hospitals in the Yorkshire Region were identified from coronary care registers, clinical coding and biochemistry records of cardiac enzyme assay requests. There were 2153 consecutive cases of AMI identified, of which 1643 patients were alive at discharge. We compared the admission use of aspirin and thrombolysis, and the use of aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and statins at discharge between cardiologists and other physicians. RESULTS: AMI patients under the care of cardiologists are more likely to receive aspirin and thrombolysis on the day of their event and to be prescribed aspirin, beta-blockers and statins on discharge. After correction for contraindications to their use, the above findings were broadly confirmed. DISCUSSION: Cardiologists are more likely than general physicians to use evidence-based treatment strategies recognised to improve AMI patient outcome. It is likely that this will translate into a reduction of mortality or other hard endpoints in patient outcomes.