|
Home
|
Issues
|
MJA shop
|
MJA Careers
|
Contact
|
Topics
|
Search
|
RSS |
→ Contents list for this issue
→ More articles on Cardiology and cardiac surgery
→ Search PubMed for related articles
To the Editor: Scott and colleagues have shown that Australia is no different to the rest of the world in applying evidence-based treatment predominantly to patients at lower risk.1 They suggest that therapy may be withheld from high-risk patients because of over-estimation of the risk of treatment, under-estimation of the actual absolute risk of non-treatment, and consideration of cost-effectiveness and social inequalities.
I suggest that their data support the concept that the patient at highest risk who misses out on evidence-based treatment may in fact be being managed with kindness and wisdom. Such a patient is old, has comorbidities, can be frail, and may be taking 10 pills or more per day, so questions of optimal prognostic therapy must be balanced against quality-of-life factors.
There is abundant evidence that patients at highest risk do not receive the maximum amount of therapy. I suspect the kindness and wisdom factor is underestimated in clinical decision making. What we need now is some good qualitative data — market research — to help explain this phenomenon before we intensify the evidence-based mantra.
St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC.
michael.jelinekATsvhm.org.au
In reply: Jelinek rightly draws attention to the need, when caring for patients with acute coronary syndromes, to distinguish disease-related risk from age-related risk arising from frailty, comorbidity, physical disability, cognitive impairment, depression, social isolation, age–treatment interactions, and quality of life. All these factors affect treatment goals in older patients and may, as we conceded, justify withholding certain treatments in individual cases. However, even after accounting for “wise compassion”, under-treatment is still likely because:
our treatment eligibility criteria excluded patients with advanced comorbidity or who declined treatment;
population-based studies of risk–benefit trade-offs argue for more intense treatment use in patients ≥ 75 years,1,2 in whom absolute risk reductions exceed those in younger patients by as much as 10%;3 and
all four key treatments at discharge (aspirin, β-blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, and statins) can be administered as once-daily, single tablet formulations, which are usually well tolerated.
Given that a third of patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes are aged 75 years or older, for whom 30-day risk of death or myocardial infarction exceeds 20% and who account for 60% of all deaths related to myocardial infarction,4 we recommend, similar to expert bodies,4,5 judicious (not mantra-driven) use of evidence-based treatments in all eligible older patients.
Department of Internal Medicine, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD.
ian_scottAThealth.qld.gov.au
|
Home
|
Issues
|
MJA shop
| Terms of use
|
MJA Careers
|
More...
|
Contact
|
Topics
|
Search
|
RSS |
©The Medical Journal of Australia 2007 www.mja.com.au PRINT ISSN: 0025-729X ONLINE ISSN: 1326-5377