+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Knowledge and practices of generalist and specialist physicians regarding drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction



Knowledge and practices of generalist and specialist physicians regarding drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction



New England Journal of Medicine 331(17): 1136-1142



The respective roles of generalist and specialist physicians in the care of patients is currently a matter of debate. Information is limited about the knowledge and practices of generalist and specialist physicians regarding conditions that both groups treat, such as myocardial infarction. We therefore surveyed 1211 cardiologists, internists, and family practitioners in the states of New York and Texas about four treatments demonstrated by randomized clinical trials to be associated with improved survival after myocardial infarction (thrombolytic therapy, immediate and long-term use of aspirin, and long-term use of beta-blockers) and two treatments for which such evidence is lacking (diltiazem for patients with pulmonary congestion and prophylactic lidocaine). We asked physicians about the effect of each treatment on survival and the likelihood that they would prescribe each class of drugs. For the four beneficial treatments, the cardiologists believed more strongly than the internists and family physicians that survival was improved by the treatment, and they were more likely to prescribe these drugs (P < 0.001). For example, 94.1 percent of cardiologists said they were very likely to prescribe thrombolytic agents to treat an acute myocardial infarction, as compared with 82.0 percent of internists and 77.3 percent of family practitioners. Conversely, for the two treatments for which trials showed no evidence of a survival benefit, cardiologists were less likely than internists and family practitioners to think there was such a benefit and less likely to prescribe the drugs (P < 0.001). For example, 4.7 percent of cardiologists reported that they were very likely to use prophylactic lidocaine, as compared with 13.1 percent of internists, and 16.5 percent of family practitioners. When we used logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders, all the differences between the cardiologists and the internists and family practitioners remained significant (P < 0.02). Internists and family practitioners are less aware of or less certain about key advances in the treatment of myocardial infarction than are cardiologists. This finding underscores the need to improve the dissemination of information from clinical trials to generalist physicians, particularly if they are to have an enlarged role in the evolving health care system.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 046508198

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 7935639

DOI: 10.1056/nejm199410273311707


Related references

Drug beliefs and practices for myocardial infarction among generalist and specialist physicians. Journal of General Internal Medicine 9(4 Suppl. 2): 46, 1994

Comparative knowledge and practice of emergency physicians, cardiologists, and primary care practitioners regarding drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Chest 113(2): 297-305, 1998

Generalist versus specialist care for acute myocardial infarction. American Journal of Cardiology 83(5): 650-654, 1999

Treatment and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction among patients of cardiologists and generalist physicians. Archives of Internal Medicine 157(22): 2570-2576, 1998

The certification status of generalist physicians and the mortality of their patients after acute myocardial infarction. Academic Medicine 76(10 Suppl): S21-S23, 2001

General practitioner's knowledge regarding the diagnosis and drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Jpma. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association 59(2): 118-122, 2009

Differences in generalist and specialist physicians knowledge regarding use of ace inhibitors for congestive heart failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 29(2 Suppl. A): 324A, 1997

Adherence counseling practices of generalist and specialist physicians caring for people living with HIV/AIDS in North Carolina. Journal of General Internal Medicine 19(1): 16-27, 2004

Differences in generalist and specialist physicians' knowledge and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for congestive heart failure. JGIM 12(9): 523-530, 1997

Two-year outcomes of statin therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction with or without dyslipidemia after percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of new-generation drug-eluting stents within Korean population: Data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 93(7): 1264-1275, 2019

Specialist and generalist physicians' adoption of antibiotic therapy to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection. Medical Care 34(12): 1199-1204, 1996

Registries of myocardial infarction in Germany. Consequences for drug therapy of patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction. Der Internist 51(10): 1324-7 1329, 2010

Primary angioplasty versus no reperfusion therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction and a pre-hospital delay of > 12-24 hours: results from the pooled data of the maximal individual therapy in acute myocardial infarction (MITRA) registry and the myocardial infarction registry (MIR). Journal of Invasive Cardiology 13(5): 367-372, 2001

Myocardial infarction in the practices of a group of private physicians. IV. Factors related to the longevity of patients with myocardial infarction during the first five years. Journal of Chronic Diseases 21(7): 473-482, 1968

Incidence, determinants, and clinical course of reinfarction in-hospital after index acute myocardial infarction (results from the pooled data of the maximal individual therapy in acute myocardial infarction [MITRA], and the myocardial infarction registry [MIR]). American Journal of Cardiology 87(9): 1039-1044, 2001