PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Shamini Gnani

Publications and source records attributed to Shamini Gnani.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Prospective validity of measuring angina severity with Canadian Cardiovascular Society class: The ACRE study.

BACKGROUND: Although the prevalence of angina remains high, the importance of grading angina severity is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent to which angina severity is associated with angiographic findings, and the rate of revascularization, mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction. METHODS: Prospective, population-based study with a 2.5-year follow-up of 2849 consecutive patients with angina undergoing coronary angiography at Barts and the London NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom, in the Appropriateness of Coronary Revascularisation (ACRE) study. Angina severity was assessed with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification, ranging from class I (mild) to IV (severe). Outcome measures were revascularization rates, and all-cause mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction. RESULTS: In age-adjusted analyses, a higher CCS class was linearly associated (P<0.001) with a higher number of diseased vessels and impaired left ventricular function. When adjusting for age, sex, smoking, history of hypertension, diabetes, number of diseased vessels, left ventricular function, use of acetylsalicylic acid, beta-blockers or statins, and revascularization status (for death and nonfatal myocardial infarction), a higher CCS class was linearly associated with higher coronary angioplasty (P<0.001) and bypass graft (P=0.03) rates, and lower all-cause mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction (P<0.001; CCS IV versus I: hazard ratio 2.44, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.09). CONCLUSION: CCS class was linearly associated with angiographic findings, revascularization rates, mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction. These findings support the importance of a four-level grading of symptom severity among angina patients.

Angina Pectoris↗
PubMed2004

Managing heart failure in primary care: first steps in implementing the National Service Framework.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is common, causes considerable morbidity, and imposes a major financial burden on both society and the National Health Service. The National Service Framework (NSF) for Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) set national standards for the management of people with heart failure in England. We examined how patients with heart failure were investigated and treated compared with NSF standards, and explored the current constraints in improving the care of these patients. METHODS: This study was carried out in two general practices (total list size 19,600) in south London. Using a computer search strategy, patients with possible heart failure were identified and clinical data extracted from their medical records. Workshops on heart failure were held at a national conference on disease management in primary care, and key stakeholders were interviewed to identify constraints in improving management. RESULTS: Ninety patients with heart failure were identified through the computerized search. Seventy-eight patients (87 per cent) had a Read code for heart failure on their electronic medical record. Forty-eight (53 per cent) patients were men and 10 (12 per cent) were aged less than 65 years. Forty-nine per cent of patients had undergone an electrocardiogram and 42 per cent an echocardiogram. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors were prescribed to 54 per cent of patients. In the workshops and stakeholder interviews, healthcare professionals and managers reported difficulties in implementing the NSF. They expressed concerns regarding the difficulties in confirming a diagnosis of heart failure, including access to echocardiograms, prescribing ACE inhibitors among older patients, and the additional workload and resources needed to ensure they met the NSF standards for heart failure. CONCLUSION: The accurate identification of heart failure patients and recording of clinical information as part of disease registers needs to improve if primary care teams are to meet the NSF standards. There is also scope to improve the investigation and treatment of heart failure patients in primary care. Achieving these objectives will require additional resources.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Questioning the claims from Kaiser.

BACKGROUND: The article by Feachem et al, published in the BMJ in 2002, claimed to show that, compared with the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS), the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system in the United States (US) has similar healthcare costs per capita, and performance that is considerably better in certain respects. AIM: To assess the accuracy of Feachem et al's comparison and conclusions. METHOD: Detailed re-examination of the data and methods used and consideration of the 82 letters responding to the article. RESULTS: Analyses revealed four main areas in which Feachem et al's methodology was flawed. Firstly, the populations of patients served by Kaiser Permanente and by the NHS are fundamentally different. Kaiser's patients are mainly employed, significantly younger, and significantly less socially deprived and so are healthier. Feachem et al fail to adjust adequately for these factors. Secondly, Feachem et al have wrongly inflated NHS costs by omitting substantial user charges payable by Kaiser members for care, excluding the costs of marketing and administration, and deducting the surplus from Kaiser's costs while underestimating the capital charge element of the NHS budget and other costs. They also used two methods of converting currency, the currency rate and a health purchasing power parity conversion. This is double counting. Feachem et al reported that NHS costs were 10% less per head than Kaiser. Correcting for the double currency conversion gives the NHS a 40% cost advantage such that per capita costs are 1161 dollars and 1951 dollars for the NHS and Kaiser, respectively. Thirdly, Feachem et al use non-standardised data for NHS bed days from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, rather than official Department of Health bed availability and activity statistics for England. Leaving aside the non-comparability of the population and lack of standardisation of the data, the result is to inflate NHS acute bed use and underestimate the efficiency of performance by at least 10%. Similar criticisms apply to their selective use of performance measures. Finally, Feachem et al claim that Kaiser is a more integrated system than the NHS. The NHS provides health care to around 60 million people free at the point of delivery, long-term and psychiatric care, and continuing care after 100 days whereas Kaiser provides care to 6 million people, mainly employed and privately insured. Important functions, such as health protection, education and training of healthcare professionals, and research and development are not included or properly costed in Feachem et al's integrated model. CONCLUSION: We have re-examined the statements made by Feachem et al and show that the claims are unsupported by the evidence. The NHS is not similar to Kaiser in coverage, costs or performance.

Age Factors↗