International comparison of acute myocardial infarction care and outcomes using quality indicators

Oren Zusman, Owen Bebb, Marlous Hall, Tatendashe Bernadette Dondo, Adam Timmis, Francois Schiele, Keith A.A. Fox, Ran Kornowski, Chris P. Gale, Zaza Iakobishvili*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Objective: To compare temporal changes in European Society of Cardiology (ESC) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) quality indicator (QI) attainment in the UK and Israel. Methods: Data cross-walking using information from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project and the Acute Coronary Syndrome in Israel Survey for matching 2-month periods in 2006, 2010 and 2013 was used to compare country-specific attainment of 14 ESC AMI QIs. Results: Patients in the UK (n=17 068) compared with Israel (n=5647) were older, more likely to be women, and had less diabetes, dyslipidaemia and heart failure. Baseline ischaemic risk was lower in Israel than the UK (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk, 110.5 vs 121.0). Overall, rates of coronary angiography (87.6% vs 64.8%) and percutaneous coronary intervention (70.3% vs 41.0%) were higher in Israel compared with the UK. Composite QI performance increased more in the UK (1.0%-86.0%) than Israel (70.2%-78.0%). Mortality rates at 30 days declined in each country, with lower rates in Israel in 2013 (4.2% vs 7.6%). Composite QI adherence adjusted for GRACE risk score was inversely associated with 30-day mortality (OR 0.95; CI 0.95 to 0.97, p<0.001). Conclusions: International comparisons of guideline recommended AMI care and outcomes can be quantified using the ESC AMI QIs. International implementation of the ESC AMI QIs may reveal country-specific opportunities for improved healthcare delivery.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)820-825
Number of pages6
Issue number11
StatePublished - 1 Jun 2019


  • acute myocardial infarction
  • quality and outcomes of care


Dive into the research topics of 'International comparison of acute myocardial infarction care and outcomes using quality indicators'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this