4.5 Article

Racial differences in long-term survival among patients with coronary artery disease

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 160, 期 4, 页码 744-751

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.06.014

关键词

-

资金

  1. Duke Clinical Research Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among blacks and whites in the United States. Despite this, there are insufficient data on the long-term prognosis of black patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) as well as the major clinical related determinants of outcome. Methods We studied 22,618 patients (3,314 black) having significant CAD findings at cardiac catheterization performed at Duke from January 1986 to December 2004 with follow-up through June 2006. Using Kaplan-Meier and Cox modeling, we compared unadjusted and adjusted long-term survival by patient race and gender (median follow-up 7.6 years, interquartile range 3.5-13.0) as well as identified major patient characteristics associated with survival. Results Blacks with CAD were younger; were more often female; had lower median household incomes; and had more hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and heart failure. The number of coronary vessels with significant disease was similar by race. At 15-year follow-up, black women had the lowest survival and white men had the highest (41.5% vs 45.8%, P < .0001). Blacks were less likely to receive initial therapy with coronary revascularization (odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.60-0.72, P < .0001). After adjusting for baseline clinical and demographic characteristics and initial treatment selection, black race remained an independent predictor of lower survival (hazard ratio 2.54, 95% CI 1.60-4.04, P < .0001). Conclusions Among patients with CAD, blacks have lower long-term survival compared with whites. The difference may be partially, but not fully, explained by differences in cardiovascular risk factors and 30-day revascularization rates. (Am Heart J 2010;160:744-51.)

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