4.3 Article

Different Patterns in Ranking of Risk Factors for the Onset Age of Acute Myocardial Infarction between Urban and Rural Areas in Eastern Taiwan

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18115558

关键词

acute myocardial infarction; urban areas; rural areas; reversible risk factors; smoking; obesity; dyslipidemia; hypertension

资金

  1. Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation [TCMMP 106-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study identified smoking, obesity, and dyslipidemia as early-onset reversible risk factors for AMI in both urban and rural areas. The impact of these factors on onset age differed slightly between urban and rural areas, with patients having these comorbidities experiencing onset at an earlier age.
This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the difference in ranking of risk factors of onset age of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) between urban and rural areas in Eastern Taiwan. Data from 2013 initial onset of AMI patients living in the urban areas (n = 1060) and rural areas (n = 953) from January 2000 to December 2015, including onset age, and conventional risk factors including sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and body mass index (BMI). The results of multiple linear regressions analysis showed smoking, obesity, and dyslipidemia were early-onset reversible risk factors of AMI in both areas. The ranking of impacts of them on the age from high to low was obesity (beta = -6.7), smoking (beta = -6.1), and dyslipidemia (beta = -4.8) in the urban areas, while it was smoking (beta = -8.5), obesity (beta= -7.8), and dyslipidemia (beta = -5.1) in the rural areas. Furthermore, the average onset ages for the patients who smoke, are obese, and have dyslipidemia simultaneously was significantly earlier than for patients with none of these comorbidities in both urban (13.6 years) and rural (14.9 years) areas. The findings of this study suggest that the different prevention strategies for AMI should be implemented in urban and rural areas.

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

4.3
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