4.5 Article

Age and sex differences in inhospital complication rates and mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention procedures: Evidence from the NCDR®

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 167, 期 3, 页码 376-383

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.11.001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Older women experience higher complication rates and mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than men, but there is limited evidence about sex-based differences in outcomes among younger patients. We compared rates of complications and inhospital mortality by sex for younger and older PCI patients. Methods A total of 1,079,751 hospital admissions for PCI were identified in the CathPCI Registry (R) from 2005 to 2008. Complication rates (general, bleeding, bleeding with transfusion, and vascular) and inhospital mortality after PCI were compared by sex and age (<55 and >= 55 years). Analyses were adjusted for demographic and clinical factors and stratified by PCI type (elective, urgent, or emergency). Results Overall, 6% of patients experienced complications, and 1% died inhospital. Unadjusted complication rates were higher for women compared with men in both age groups. In risk-adjusted analyses, younger women (odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.16-1.33) and older women (1.27, 1.09-1.47) were more likely to experience any complication than similarly aged men. The increased risk persisted across complication categories and PCI type. Within age groups, risk-adjusted mortality was marginally higher for young women (1.19, 1.00-1.41), but not for older women (1.03, 0.97-1.10). In analyses stratified by PCI type, young women had twice the mortality risk after an elective procedure as young men (2.04, 1.15-3.61). Conclusions Women, regardless of age, experience more complications after PCI than men; young women are at increased mortality risk after an elective PCI. Identifying strategies to reduce adverse outcomes, particularly for women younger than 55 years, is important.

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