BACKGROUND: Adherence to guideline-indicated care for the treatment of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is associated with improved outcomes. We investigated the extent and consequences of non-adherence to guideline-indicated care across a national health system.
METHODS: A cohort study ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02436187) was conducted using data from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project ( n = 389,057 NSTEMI, n = 247 hospitals, England and Wales, 2003-2013). Accelerated failure time models were used to quantify the impact of non-adherence on survival according to dates of guideline publication.
RESULTS: Over a period of 1,079,044 person-years (median 2.2 years of follow-up), 113,586 (29.2%) NSTEMI patients died. Of those eligible to receive care, 337,881 (86.9%) did not receive one or more guideline-indicated intervention; the most frequently missed were dietary advice ( n = 254,869, 68.1%), smoking cessation advice ( n = 245,357, 87.9%), P2Y12 inhibitors ( n = 192,906, 66.3%) and coronary angiography ( n = 161,853, 43.4%). Missed interventions with the strongest impact on reduced survival were coronary angiography (time ratio: 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.17-0.18), cardiac rehabilitation (time ratio: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.48-0.50), smoking cessation advice (time ratio: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.51-0.57) and statins (time ratio: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.55-0.58). If all eligible patients in the study had received optimal care at the time of guideline publication, then 32,765 (28.9%) deaths (95% CI: 30,531-33,509) may have been prevented.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients hospitalised with NSTEMI missed at least one guideline-indicated intervention for which they were eligible. This was significantly associated with excess mortality. Greater attention to the provision of guideline-indicated care for the management of NSTEMI will reduce premature cardiovascular deaths.

Recently in this journal John Keown attacked the BMA Guidance published on \'Withholding and Withdrawing Life-prolonging Medical Treatment\', arguing that it was fundamentally at odds with the sanctity of life doctrine as properly understood, condemning the intentional termination of individuals\' lives. In riposte it is asserted that even this modified version of the doctrine cannot support a defensible moral or legal standard for decision-making here, being founded upon an excessive emphasis on the mental state of the clinician and an inappropriately narrow focus on the effects of the proposed treatment on the \'health\' of the patient, as opposed to being primarily driven by the (best) interests of the patient. The attempt to divorce treatment decisions from broader evaluations of the net benefit or otherwise able to be attained by the patient from such treatment, including the taking into account of the individual\'s handicapped state, accordingly fails. Acceptance of such reality is, at the least, the first step toward a common language for further dialogue even between those with polar opposite opinions in this sphere.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。