Thousands of lives could be saved if heart attack survival in the UK matched that of Sweden, research has shown.
Between 2004 and 2010, over a third more Britons than Swedes died within a month of having a heart attack, according to a major study of half a million patients.
More than 11,000 deaths could have been avoided if UK care standards were as good as Sweden’s, the authors claim.
A key reason for the striking difference between the two countries is that British patients are not receiving the best possible treatment, say the researchers in The Lancet.
Professor Harry Hemingway, from University College London, who led the research, said: “Our findings are a cause for concern. The uptake and use of new technologies and effective treatments recommended in guidelines has been far quicker in Sweden. This has contributed to large differences in the management and outcomes of patients.”
The team assessed quality of care and outcomes for all heart attack patients treated in hospital in the UK and Sweden over a seven-year period between 2004 and 2010.
In total, records relating to 391,077 patients from 242 hospitals in the UK and 119,786 from 86 hospitals in Sweden were assessed and analysed.
The results showed that 30 days after a heart attack, 10.5% of patients discharged from hospital were dead in the UK compared with 7.6% in Sweden.
At the start of the study the difference was even more stark, with almost 50% more patients dying in the UK. By 2010 the size of the gap had reduced to 20%.
Taking into account age and sex differences, heart attack severity, risk factors including rates of smoking and diabetes, and other influences, the scientists estimated that over the study period 11,263 British lives could have been saved by matching Swedish standards.
Co-author Dr Tomas Jernberg, from the Karolinska University Hospital in Sweden, said: “Our findings suggest that failure to get the best treatment is one likely reason why short-term survival for heart attack patients is lower in the UK.”
In particular, procedures to open up constricted coronary arteries, such as balloon angioplasty and stent placement, were used more often and earlier in Sweden, where they were applied in 59% of cases compared with 22% in the UK.
Recommended drugs such as beta blockers were also less likely to be prescribed to British patients discharged from hospital after treatment for a heart attack.
Writing in The Lancet, the researchers conclude: “We found clinically important differences in the care and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) in Sweden and the UK.
“International comparisons of care and outcome registries might inform new research and policy initiatives to improve the quality of health systems.”
Dr Mike Knapton, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said: “Through access to patient health records, researchers have been able to highlight significant differences to heart attack survival rates in the UK and Sweden.
“The reasons behind the differing survival rates are complex, but one explanation could be the speed with which the two countries adopted primary angioplasty as an emergency treatment.
“Sweden’s early adoption meant they saw the benefits quicker and this is reflected in the figures. However, the UK has caught up and last year the majority of patients received this treatment.
“The lesson here for the UK is that we need to be led by the research and introduce pioneering practices quickly and on a large scale.”
Are you able to Speak out Safely?
Sign our petition to put pressure on your trust to support an open and transparent NHS