Patients admitted with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in New Zealand in 2007: results of a second comprehensive nationwide audit and a comparison with the first audit from 2002.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To audit all patients admitted to a New Zealand (NZ) Hospital with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) over a 14-day period, to assess their number, presentation type and patient management during the hospital admission and at discharge. To compare patient management in 2007 with the 1st NZ Cardiac Society ACS Audit from 2002. METHODS: We updated the established NZ ACS Audit group of 36 hospitals to 39 hospitals now admitting ACS patients across New Zealand. A comprehensive data form was used to record individual patient information for all patients admitted between 00.00 hours on 14 May 2007 to 24.00 hours on 27 May 2007. RESULTS: 1003 patients, 9% more than in 2002 (n=930), were admitted with a suspected or definite ACS: 8% with a ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 41% with a non-STEMI (NSTEMI), 33% with unstable angina pectoris (UAP), and 17% with another cardiac or medical condition. In 2007 non-invasive risk stratification following presentation remained similar to 2002 and was suboptimal: exercise treadmill tests (21% vs 20%, p=0.62), echocardiograms (19% vs 20%, p=0.85). An increase in utilisation of coronary angiography was noted (32% vs 21%, p<0.0001). In hospital revascularisation rates remained low in patients with diagnosed ACS (n=828): STEMI (45%), NSTEMI (23%) and UAP (7.3%). In comparison to 2002, changes were noted in revascularisation techniques with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed in 19% vs 7% (p<0.0001). The use of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remained extremely low: 2.8% vs 3.5% (p=0.20). The use of hospital and discharge medication of proven benefit was also limited. CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative group of clinicians and nurses has performed a second nationwide audit of ACS patients. Despite a small increase in access to cardiac angiography, guideline recommended risk stratification following the index suspected ACS admission with a treadmill test or cardiac angiogram occurred in only 1 in 2 (48%) patients. Furthermore, in patients with a definite ACS, levels of revascularisation are low. (PCI 19%, CABG 2.8%). These aspects of care remain of significant concern and have not substantially changed in 5 years. There remains an urgent need to develop a comprehensive national strategy to improve all aspects of ACS patient management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".