4.5 Article

Seasonal and weekly patterns of hospital admissions for nonfatal and fatal myocardial infarction

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 27, 期 9, 页码 1097-1103

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2008.08.009

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Ferrara, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This retrospective study, based oil the database of hospital admissions of the region Emilia-Romagna [RER], Italy, was aimed to confirm the existence of a seasonal or weekly pattern of hospital admission of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and to verify possible differences between nonfatal or fatal cases. Methods: The study included all cases of patients with AMI hospitalized between 1998 and 2006. Day of admission was categorized, respectively, into four 3-month intervals, into twelve 1-month intervals, and into seven I-day intervals for statistical analysis, performed by chi(2) test goodness of fit and partial Fourier series on total cases, males, females, and nonfatal and fatal cases. Results: The database included 64 191 cases of AMI (62.9% males, 12.3% fatal). Acute myocardial infarction was most frequent in winter and least in summer (P<.0001). The highest number of cases was recorded in January and the lowest in July (P <.0001). Chronobiologic analysis showed winter peaks for total cases (January, P =.035), females (December, P =.009), and fatal cases (January, P <.001). Acute Myocardial infarction was most frequent on Monday and least oil Sunday (P <.0001). Comparing observed vs expected events, there was a significantly higher frequency of cases oil weekdays and reduced on weekend,, for total (P <.0001), nonfatal (P <.0001), and fatal cases (P =.0001). Conclusions: This study confirms a significantly higher frequency of AMI admissions in winter and on a Monday. No difference in the frequency of nonfatal vs fatal events, depending of patients' admissions on weekdays or weekends, was found. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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