4.2 Article

Comorbidities in patients hospitalized due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A comparative analysis of the ECCO and ESMI studies

期刊

REVISTA CLINICA ESPANOLA
卷 212, 期 6, 页码 281-286

出版社

EDICIONES DOYMA S A
DOI: 10.1016/j.rce.2012.02.014

关键词

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Comorbidities; Hospitalization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Backgrounds and objectives: The presence of associated diseases is very frequent in patients hospitalized due to exacerbation of COPD. We have studied the comorbidities of patients admitted due to the disease in the Spanish Internal Medicine Services and we have evaluated the variations in regards to a previous study (ECCO study) performed two years earlier. Patients and methods: A cross-sectional, multicenter and cohort study was performed. Patients hospitalized due to exacerbation of COPD in Spanish Internal Medicine Services were enrolled. All the patients were studied for the presence of comorbidity using the Charlson index and a questionnaire with relevant conditions not included in this index. Furthermore, spirometric data were collected on the duration of the disease or home treatment, among other variables. Results: A total of 1004 patients (398 in the ECCO study and 606 in the ESMI study) were studied. Of these, 89.4% were males, with mean age of 73 years (SD: 9.5 years). The patients of the ESMI study obtain higher scores on the Charlson index (3.04 vs. 2.71; P<0.01), and had a greater prevalence of ischemic heart disease (17 vs. 22.0%; P<0.05), heart failure (26.9 vs. 35.5%; P<.002), peripheral vascular disease (12.6 vs. 17.4%; P<.02), arterial hypertension (54.8 vs. 65.6%; P<.001), diabetes mellitus (29.4 vs. 37%; P<.02) and renal failure (6.5 vs. 16.8%; P<.0001). Conclusions: This study confirms the elevated prevalence of associated diseases in patients with COPD who are admitted to the Spanish Internal Medicine Services and the increase of comorbidities. (C) 2011 Elsevier Espana, S.L. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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