Abstract
Abstract Background/Aims We aimed to assess differences in patient management, and outcomes, of A ustralian and N ew Z ealand patients admitted with a suspected or confirmed acute coronary syndrome ( ACS ). Methods We used comprehensive data from the binational A ustralia and N ew Z ealand ACS ‘ SNAPSHOT ‘ audit, acquired on individual patients admitted between 00.00 h on 14 M ay 2012 to 24.00 h on 27 M ay 2012. Results There were 4387 patient admissions, 3381 (77%) in A ustralia and 1006 (23%) in N ew Z ealand; A ustralian patients were slightly younger (67 vs 69 years, P = 0.0044). Of the 2356 patients with confirmed ACS , A ustralian patients were at a lower cardiovascular risk with a lower median Global Registry Acute Coronary Events score (147 vs 154 P = 0.0008), but as likely to receive an invasive coronary angiogram (58% vs 54%, P = 0.082), or revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (32% vs 31%, P = 0.92) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (7.0% vs 5.6%, P = 0.32). Of the 1937 non‐segment elevation myocardial infarction/unstable angina pectoris ( NSTEMI / UAP ) patients, A ustralian patients had a shorter time to angiography (46 h vs 67 h, P < 0.0001). However, at discharge, A ustralian NSTEMI / UAP survivors were less likely to receive aspirin (84% vs 89%, P = 0.0079, a second anti‐platelet agent (57% vs 63%, P = 0.050) or a beta blocker (67% vs 77%, P = 0.0002). In‐hospital death rates were not different (2.7% vs 3.2%, P = 0.55) between A ustralia and N ew Z ealand. Conclusions Overall more similarities were seen, than differences, in the management of suspected or confirmed ACS patients between A ustralia and N ew Z ealand. However, in several management areas, both countries could improve the service delivery to this high‐risk patient group.