4.5 Article

Long-term outcome of primary angioplasty compared with fibrinolysis across age groups:: A Danish Multicenter Randomized Study on Fibrinolytic Therapy Versus Acute Coronary Angioplasty in Acute Myocardial Infarction (DANAMI-2) substudy

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 156, 期 2, 页码 391-396

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.04.005

关键词

-

资金

  1. Danish Heart Foundation
  2. Danish Medical Research Council
  3. AstroZeneca
  4. Bristol-Meyers Squibb
  5. Cordes
  6. Pfizer
  7. Pharmicio-Upjohn
  8. Boehringer Ingelheim
  9. Guerbert

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Primary angioplasty in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction has been shown to be superior to fibrinolysis. Whether elderly patients have the same long-term benefit from angioplasty, compared with fibrinolysis, as younger patients is unknown. Methods The effect of angioplasty versus fibrinolysis was investigated in 1,572 patients from the DANAMI-2 study across age groups. End points were total mortality and a composite end point of death, reinfarction, or disabling stroke. Follow-up was 3 years. Results Increasing age was associated with mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.45 per 10 year increment, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78-3.37, P < .0001) and a higher composite event rate (adjusted HR 1.51, CI 1.26-1.82, P < .0001). The long-term superiority of angioplasty over fibrinolysis on the combined outcome was independent of age: patients aged < 56 years (HR 0.73, CI 0.41-1.31); 56 to 65 years (HR 0.83, CI 0.52-1.33); 66 to 75 years (HR 0.71, CI 0.48-1.04); and > 75 years (HR 0.83, CI 0.59-1.17) (P = .006 for overall treatment effect and P = .5 for interaction between age and treatment). There was no long-term effect of angioplasty versus fibrinolysis on mortality and no interaction with age (P = .5 and P for interaction = .6). Conclusions The long-term effect of primary angioplasty compared with fibrinolysis in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction is not affected by age.

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