MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146006054 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v63i3.916

Use of Evidence-Based Therapy at Discharge for Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: Retrospective Audit of Medical Records

2010· article· en· W2146006054 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Stephanie Young, John Hawboldt, Neil Pearce

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionMedical recordInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyInfarctionPharmacotherapyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Various guidelines are available outlining optimal therapy for patients with acute myocardial infarction. Canadian institutions providing care for such patients have been encouraged to evaluate their care processes using specific indicators.Objective: To determine the proportion of patients with acute myocardial infarction discharged from a single health authority for whom acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), adrenergic ß-receptor antagonists (ß-blockers), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, or 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins) had been prescribed.Methods: Patients treated over a 12-month period (April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2005) for whom the most responsible diagnosis was acute myocardial infarction were eligible for inclusion in this review. Retrieved data included diagnosis, demographic information, comorbidities, and medications at the time of admission and discharge. Rates of discharge prescribing for the 4 drug classes were calculated for all patients and for “ideal” patients (those without documented contraindications). Rates were compared with published benchmark values.Results: Medical records for a total of 346 eligible patients were reviewed. Mean age was 65.3 years (standard deviation 13.4 years), and 226 (65.3%) of the patients were male. The coded diagnosis was ST-elevation myocardial infarction for 91 patients (26.3%), non-STelevation myocardial infarction for 164 (47.4%), and myocardial infarction not specified for 91 (26.3%). For “ideal” patients, the prescribing rates were 99.0% (308 of 311 patients) for ASA, 96.3% (310 of 322 patients) for ß-blockers, 90.4% (264 of 292 patients) for ACE inhibitors, and 88.8% (278 of 313 patients) for statins.Conclusions: Rates of prescribing of ASA, ß-blockers, ACE inhibitors, and statins for “ideal” patients discharged after treatment for acute myocardial infarction exceeded the published Canadian benchmark rates (≥ 90% for ASA, ≥ 85% for ß-blockers and ACE inhibitors, ≥ 70% for statins).RÉSUMÉContexte : Il existe diverses lignes directrices décrivant le traitement optimal pour les patients ayant subi un infarctus aigu du myocarde. Les établissements de santé canadiens qui soignent de tels patients ont été encouragés à évaluer leurs processus de soins en utilisant des indicateurs précis.Objectif : Déterminer la proportion de patients ayant subi un infarctus aigu du myocarde et ayant reçu leur congé d’une seule régie de la santé avec une prescription d’acide acétylsalicylique (AAS), d’antagoniste des récepteurs β-adrénergiques (β-bloquant), d’inhibiteur de l’enzyme de conversion de l’angiotensine (ECA) ou d’inhibiteur de la 3-hydroxy- 3-méthylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) réductase (statine).Méthodes : Les patients traités sur une période de 12 mois (entre le 1er avril 2004 et le 31 mars 2005) et dont le diagnostic le plus responsable était celui d’infarctus aigu du myocarde étaient admissibles à l’analyse. Les données recueillies incluaient le diagnostic, les renseignements démographiques, les comorbidités et les médicaments au moment de l’admission et du congé. Un taux de prescription au congé pour les quatre classes de médicaments a été calculé pour tous les patients et pour les patients « idéaux » (ceux sans contre-indications documentées). Ces taux ont été comparés aux références optimales publiées.Résultats : Les dossiers médicaux d’un total de 346 patients admissibles ont été analysés. L’âge moyen des patients était de 65,3 ans (écart-type de 13,4 ans) et 226 (65,3 %) des patients étaient des hommes. Le diagnostic codé était un infarctus du myocarde avec élévation du segment ST (91 patients ou 26,3 %), un infarctus du myocarde sans élévation du segment ST (164 ou 47,4 %) et infarctus du myocarde non précisé (91 ou 26,3 %). Pour les patients « idéaux », les taux de prescription étaient de 99,0 % (308 des 311 patients) pour l’AAS, de 96,3 % (310 des 322 patients) pour les β-bloquants, de 90,4 % (264 des 292 patients) pour les inhibiteurs de l’ECA et de 88,8 % (278 des 313 patients) pour les statines.Conclusions : Les taux de prescription d’AAS, de β-bloquants, d’inhibiteurs de l’ECA et de statines pour les patients « idéaux » ayant reçu leur congé après le traitement de l’infarctus du myocarde dépassaient les taux de référence canadiens publiés (≥ 90% pour l’AAS, ≥ 85% pour les ß-bloquants et les inhibiteurs de l’ECA, ≥ 70% pour les statines).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207