4.5 Article

Explaining trends in coronary heart disease hospitalisations in New Zealand: trend for admissions and incidence can be in opposite directions

期刊

HEART
卷 94, 期 12, 页码 1589-1593

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2008.142588

关键词

-

资金

  1. New Zealand Population Health charitable Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A recent increase in the absolute number of hospitalisations for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in New Zealand may signal a new epidemic of coronary heart disease (CHD). Objective: To quantify the impact of factors other than incidence of disease on these national hospitalisation trends. Methods: A total of 324 663 electronic records of New Zealand public CHD hospitalisations from 1993 to 2005 were examined. Repeat admissions were identified by record linkage using a unique national health identifier for each patient. Results: Hospitalisations for AMI increased by about 8% a year throughout the 13-year study period. Interhospital transfers increased by 117% over the study period, while readmissions increased by 42%. By 2005 over 60% of all admissions for CHD were readmissions. After accounting for readmissions, hospital transfers and population changes, the age-standardised first AMI hospitalisation rate peaked in 1995 and has since declined by 15%. Reciprocal trends in AMI and angina hospitalisations were seen, indicating changing diagnostic criteria. Overall hospitalisation rates for first CHD events remained relatively steady at about 216.4 events per 100 000 between 1993 and 2000 and subsequently declined by 25% to 162.2 events per 100 000 in 2005. Conclusion: Recent trends in hospitalisation rates for AMI are significantly influenced by factors other than underlying changes in CHD incidence. Increasing absolute numbers of admissions coded as AMI in New Zealand between 1993 and 2005 can be accounted for by increases in readmissions, increases in interhospital transfers, changes in diagnostic criteria for AMI and in demography.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据