BackgroundThis study assessed sex differences in treatments, all‐cause mortality, relative survival, and excess mortality following acute myocardial infarction.Methods and ResultsA population‐based cohort of all hospitals providing acute myocardial infarction care in Sweden (SWEDEHEART [Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence‐Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies]) from 2003 to 2013 was included in the analysis. Excess mortality rate ratios (EMRRs), adjusted for clinical characteristics and guideline‐indicated treatments after matching by age, sex, and year to background mortality data, were estimated. Although there were no sex differences in all‐cause mortality adjusted for age, year of hospitalization, and comorbidities for ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non‐STEMI at 1 year (mortality rate ratio: 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.96–1.05] and 0.97 [95% CI, 0.95–0.99], respectively) and 5 years (mortality rate ratio: 1.03 [95% CI, 0.99–1.07] and 0.97 [95% CI, 0.95–0.99], respectively), excess mortality was higher among women compared with men for STEMI and non‐STEMI at 1 year (EMRR: 1.89 [95% CI, 1.66–2.16] and 1.20 [95% CI, 1.16–1.24], respectively) and 5 years (EMRR: 1.60 [95% CI, 1.48–1.72] and 1.26 [95% CI, 1.21–1.32], respectively). After further adjustment for the use of guideline‐indicated treatments, excess mortality among women with non‐STEMI was not significant at 1 year (EMRR: 1.01 [95% CI, 0.97–1.04]) and slightly higher at 5 years (EMRR: 1.07 [95% CI, 1.02–1.12]). For STEMI, adjustment for treatments attenuated the excess mortality for women at 1 year (EMRR: 1.43 [95% CI, 1.26–1.62]) and 5 years (EMRR: 1.31 [95% CI, 1.19–1.43]).ConclusionsWomen with acute myocardial infarction did not have statistically different all‐cause mortality, but had higher excess mortality compared with men that was attenuated after adjustment for the use of guideline‐indicated treatments. This suggests that improved adherence to guideline recommendations for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction may reduce premature cardiovascular death among women.Clinical Trial RegistrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02952417.

BackgroundFor acute myocardial infarction (AMI) without heart failure (HF), it is unclear if β-blockers are associated with reduced mortality.ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to determine the association between β-blocker use and mortality in patients with AMI without HF or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).MethodsThis cohort study used national English and Welsh registry data from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project. A total of 179,810 survivors of hospitalization with AMI without HF or LVSD, between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2013 (final follow-up: December 31, 2013), were assessed. Survival-time inverse probability weighting propensity scores and instrumental variable analyses were used to investigate the association between the use of β-blockers and 1-year mortality.ResultsOf 91,895 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 87,915 patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 88,542 (96.4%) and 81,933 (93.2%) received β-blockers, respectively. For the entire cohort, with >163,772 person-years of observation, there were 9,373 deaths (5.2%). Unadjusted 1-year mortality was lower for patients who received β-blockers compared with those who did not (4.9% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.001). However, after weighting and adjustment, there was no significant difference in mortality between those with and without β-blocker use (average treatment effect [ATE] coefficient: 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.60 to 0.75; p = 0.827). Findings were similar for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coefficient: 0.30; 95% CI: −0.98 to 1.58; p = 0.637) and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coefficient: −0.07; 95% CI: −0.68 to 0.54; p = 0.819).ConclusionsAmong survivors of hospitalization with AMI who did not have HF or LVSD as recorded in the hospital, the use of β-blockers was not associated with a lower risk of death at any time point up to 1 year. (β-Blocker Use and Mortality in Hospital Survivors of Acute Myocardial Infarction Without Heart Failure; NCT02786654)

BackgroundThere is limited knowledge of the scale and impact of multimorbidity for patients who have had an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Therefore, this study aimed to determine the extent to which multimorbidity is associated with long-term survival following AMI.Methods and findingsThis national observational study included 693,388 patients (median age 70.7 years, 452,896 [65.5%] male) from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (England and Wales) who were admitted with AMI between 1 January 2003 and 30 June 2013. There were 412,809 (59.5%) patients with multimorbidity at the time of admission with AMI, i.e., having at least 1 of the following long-term health conditions: diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, heart failure, renal failure, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, or hypertension. Those with heart failure, renal failure, or cerebrovascular disease had the worst outcomes (39.5 [95% CI 39.0–40.0], 38.2 [27.7–26.8], and 26.6 [25.2–26.4] deaths per 100 person-years, respectively). Latent class analysis revealed 3 multimorbidity phenotype clusters: (1) a high multimorbidity class, with concomitant heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, and hypertension, (2) a medium multimorbidity class, with peripheral vascular disease and hypertension, and (3) a low multimorbidity class. Patients in class 1 were less likely to receive pharmacological therapies compared with class 2 and 3 patients (including aspirin, 83.8% versus 87.3% and 87.2%, respectively; β-blockers, 74.0% versus 80.9% and 81.4%; and statins, 80.6% versus 85.9% and 85.2%). Flexible parametric survival modelling indicated that patients in class 1 and class 2 had a 2.4-fold (95% CI 2.3–2.5) and 1.5-fold (95% CI 1.4–1.5) increased risk of death and a loss in life expectancy of 2.89 and 1.52 years, respectively, compared with those in class 3 over the 8.4-year follow-up period. The study was limited to all-cause mortality due to the lack of available cause-specific mortality data. However, we isolated the disease-specific association with mortality by providing the loss in life expectancy following AMI according to multimorbidity phenotype cluster compared with the general age-, sex-, and year-matched population.ConclusionsMultimorbidity among patients with AMI was common, and conferred an accumulative increased risk of death. Three multimorbidity phenotype clusters that were significantly associated with loss in life expectancy were identified and should be a concomitant treatment target to improve cardiovascular outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03037255.

AimsTo determine whether changing patterns of anticoagulant use in atrial fibrillation (AF) have impacted on stroke rates in England.Methods and resultsEnglish national databases, 2006–2016, were interrogated to assess stroke admissions and oral anticoagulant use. The number of patients with known AF increased linearly from 692 054 to 983 254 (prevalence 1.29% vs. 1.71%). Hospital episodes of AF-related stroke/100 000 AF patients increased from 80/week in 2006 to 98/week in 2011 and declined to 86/week in 2016 (2006–2011 difference 18.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 17.9–18.1, 2011–2016 difference −12.0, 95% CI −12.1 to −11.9). Anticoagulant use amongst patients with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2 increased from 48.0% to 78.6% and anti-platelet use declined from 42.9% to 16.1%; the greatest rate of change occurred in the second 5 year period (for anticoagulants 2006–2011 difference 4.8%, 95% CI 4.5–5.1%, 2011–2016 difference 25.8%, 95% CI 25.5–26.1%). After adjustment for AF prevalence, a 1% increase in anticoagulant use was associated with a 0.8% decrease in the weekly rate of AF-related stroke (incidence rate ratio 0.992, 95% CI 0.989–0.994). Had the use of anticoagulants remained at 2009 levels, 4068 (95% CI 4046–4089) more strokes would have been predicted in 2015/2016.ConclusionBetween 2006 and 2016, AF prevalence and anticoagulant use in England increased. From 2011, hospitalized AF-related stroke rates declined and were significantly associated with increased anticoagulant uptake.

AimTo investigate sex differences in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) guideline-indicated care as defined by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA) quality indicators.MethodsNationwide cohort study comprising 691 290 AMI hospitalisations in England and Wales (n=233 hospitals) from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project between 1 January 2003 and 30 June 2013.ResultsThere were 34.5% (n=238 489) women (median age 76.7 (IQR 66.3–84.0) years; 33.9% (n=80 884) ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)) and 65.5% (n=452 801) men (median age 67.1 (IQR 56.9–77.2) years; 42.5% (n=192 229) STEMI). Women less frequently received 13 of the 16 quality indicators compared with men, including timely reperfusion therapy for STEMI (76.8% vs 78.9%; p<0.001), timely coronary angiography for non-STEMI (24.2% vs 36.7%; p<0.001), dual antiplatelet therapy (75.4% vs 78.7%) and secondary prevention therapies (87.2% vs 89.6% for statins, 82.5% vs 85.6% for ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers and 62.6% vs 67.6% for beta-blockers; all p<0.001). Median 30-day Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk score adjusted mortality was higher for women than men (median: 5.2% (IQR 1.8%–13.1%) vs 2.3% (IQR 0.8%–7.1%), p<0.001). An estimated 8243 (95% CI 8111 to 8375) deaths among women could have been prevented over the study period if their quality indicator attainment had been equal to that attained by men.ConclusionAccording to the ESC ACCA AMI quality indicators, women in England and Wales less frequently received guideline-indicated care and had significantly higher mortality than men. Greater attention to the delivery of recommended AMI treatments for women has the potential to reduce the sex-AMI mortality gap.

Backgrounddespite a large and growing population of older people with frailty and atrial fibrillation (AF), there is a lack of guidance on optimal AF management in this high-risk group.Objectiveto synthesise the existing evidence base on the association between frailty, AF and clinical outcomes.Methodsa systematic review of studies examining the association between validated measures of frailty, AF and clinical outcomes, and meta-analysis of the association between frailty and oral anticoagulation (OAC) prescription.Resultstwenty studies (30,883 patients) were included, all observational. Fifteen were in hospital, four in the community, one in nursing care. Risk of bias was low-to-moderate. AF prevalence was 3%–38%. In people with AF, frailty was associated with increased stroke incidence, all-cause mortality, symptom severity and length of hospital stay.Meta-analysis of six studies showed frailty was associated with decreased OAC prescription at hospital admission (pooled adjusted OR 0.45 [95%CI 0.22–0.93], three studies), but not at discharge (pooled adjusted OR 0.40 [95%CI 0.13–1.23], three studies). A community-based study showed increased OAC prescription associated with frailty (OR 2.33 [95%CI 1.03–5.23]).Conclusionfrailty is common, and associated with adverse clinical outcomes in patients with AF. There is evidence of an association between frailty status and OAC prescription, with different direction of effect in community compared with hospital cohorts. Despite the majority of care for older people being provided in the community, there is a lack of evidence on the association between frailty, AF, anticoagulation and clinical outcomes to guide optimal care in this setting.

No abstract

The past three decades have seen a steady increase in the availability of routinely collected health and social care data and the processing power to analyse it. These developments represent a major opportunity for ageing research, especially with the integration of different datasets across traditional boundaries of health and social care, for prognostic research and novel evaluations of interventions with representative populations of older people. However, there are considerable challenges in using routine data at the level of coding, data analysis and in the application of findings to everyday care. New Horizons in applying routine data to investigate novel questions in ageing research require a collaborative approach between clinicians, data scientists, biostatisticians, epidemiologists and trial methodologists. This requires building capacity for the next generation of research leaders in this important area. There is a need to develop consensus code lists and standardised, validated algorithms for common conditions and outcomes that are relevant for older people to maximise the potential of routine data research in this group. Lastly, we must help drive the application of routine data to improve the care of older people, through the development of novel methods for evaluation of interventions using routine data infrastructure. We believe that harnessing routine data can help address knowledge gaps for older people living with multiple conditions and frailty, and design interventions and pathways of care to address the complex health issues we face in caring for older people.