A prospective national survey of management and clinical outcome of acute myocardial infarction in Israel, 2000.

BACKGROUND Little information is available on the clinical practice and implementation of guidelines for treating acute myocardial infarction patients in Israel. OBJECTIVE To assess patient characteristics, hospital course, management, and 30 day clinical outcome of all AMI patients hospitalized in Israel during a 2 month period in 2000. METHOD We conducted a prospective 2 month survey of consecutive AMI patients admitted to 82 of 96 internal medicine departments and all 26 cardiac departments operating in Israel in 2000. Data were collected uniformly by means of a hospital and 30 day follow-up form. RESULTS During the survey 1,683 consecutive patients with a discharge diagnosis of AMI were included. Their mean age was 66 years; 73% were male. The electrocardiographic pattern on admission revealed ST elevation, non-ST elevation and an undetermined ECG in 63%, 34% and 4% of patients respectively. Aspirin and heparin were given to 95% of patients. Beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were given to 76% and 65% of patients respectively. Among hospital survivors, 45% received lipid-lowering drugs. Thrombolytic therapy was administered in 28% of patients, coronary angiography was used in 45%, and 7% of patients underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The 7 and 30 day mortality rates were 7% and 11% respectively. CONCLUSIONS This nationwide survey shows that one-third of the AMI patients in Israel are elderly (> or = 75 years). The survey suggests that clinical guidelines for the management of patients with AMI are partially implemented in the community. Data from large surveys representing the "real world" practice are of utmost importance for the evaluation of clinical guidelines, research and educational purposes.

[1]  P. Armstrong,et al.  Fibrinolysis for acute myocardial infarction: current status and new horizons for pharmacological reperfusion, part 1. , 2001, Circulation.

[2]  Á. Avezum,et al.  Practice variation and missed opportunities for reperfusion in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) , 2002, The Lancet.

[3]  R. Gibbons,et al.  Comparison of primary coronary angioplasty and intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction : A quantitative review , 1997 .

[4]  M Rosén,et al.  A national record linkage to study acute myocardial infarction incidence and case fatality in Sweden. , 2001, International journal of epidemiology.

[5]  J S Alpert,et al.  Are data from clinical registries of any value? , 2000, European heart journal.

[6]  M L Simoons,et al.  A prospective survey of the characteristics, treatments and outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes in Europe and the Mediterranean basin; the Euro Heart Survey of Acute Coronary Syndromes (Euro Heart Survey ACS). , 2002, European heart journal.

[7]  R. Califf,et al.  1999 update: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction). , 1996, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  N. Powe,et al.  Lack of benefit for intravenous thrombolysis in patients with myocardial infarction who are older than 75 years. , 2000, Circulation.

[9]  W. French Trends in acute myocardial infarction management: use of the National Registry ofMyocardial Infarction in quality improvement. , 2000, The American journal of cardiology.

[10]  U Keil,et al.  The ENACT study: a pan-European survey of acute coronary syndromes. European Network for Acute Coronary Treatment. , 2000, European heart journal.

[11]  J. Ferrières,et al.  Management of acute myocardial infarction in intensive care units in 1995: a nationwide French survey of practice and early hospital results. , 1997, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[12]  P. Armstrong,et al.  Fibrinolysis for acute myocardial infarction: current status and new horizons for pharmacological reperfusion, part 2. , 2001, Circulation.

[13]  J O'Keefe,et al.  A Comparison of Immediate Angioplasty with Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction , 1993 .

[14]  J. Wardrope,et al.  Comparison of primary coronary angioplasty and intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. , 1999, Journal of accident & emergency medicine.

[15]  T. Bowker,et al.  Clinical outcomes, risk stratification and practice patterns of unstable angina and myocardial infarction without ST elevation: Prospective Registry of Acute Ischaemic Syndromes in the UK (PRAIS-UK) , 2000, European heart journal.

[16]  R. M. Rubison,et al.  Treatment of myocardial infarction in the United States (1990 to 1993). Observations from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. , 1994, Circulation.

[17]  J. Tcheng Primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction , 2002 .