4.7 Article

Trends in long-term survival after myocardial infarction:: less favourable patterns for patients from deprived areas

Journal

JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 248, Issue 5, Pages 425-434

Publisher

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2796.2000.00757.x

Keywords

long-term survival; myocardial infarction; socioeconomic; time trends

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. New treatments have improved the prognosis for patients with acute myocardial infarction. However, studies on long-term survival are not unequivocally in favour of an improved long-term prognosis. This study aimed to analyse trends in 3-year survival in relation to sex, age and socioeconomic level of residential area. Setting. The Malmo myocardial infarction register, Sweden. Participants. All men and women in the city who, between 1978 and 1995, were admitted for a first acute myocardial infarction (n = 11 226). Main outcome measures. Age-standardized 3-year survival rates. Results. Both 28-day and 3-year survival rates improved markedly during the study period. Age-standardized 3-year survival (per 100 patients) amongst men and women who survived 28 days increased, between 1978-81 and 1991-95, from 64 to 78 in men and from 66 to 77 in women, an annual increase of 1.4% (95% CI = 1.1-1.7) and 1.2% (0.8-1.5), respectively. There were marked differences in survival between residential areas with different socioeconomic circumstances. The 3-year survival rates amongst men correlated significantly with the socioeconomic circumstances in the areas expressed in terms of a socioeconomic score (men: r = 0.60, n = 17, P = 0.01; women: r = 0.37, P = 0.15). Trends tended to be less favourable in deprived areas. Conclusion. Three-year survival after first myocardial infarction has continuously improved for men and women in all age groups. Prognosis was worse and trends tended to be less favourable for patients from deprived areas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available