4.4 Article

Impact of prior peripheral arterial disease and stroke on outcomes of acute coronary syndromes and effect of evidence-based therapies (from the global registry of acute coronary events)

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 100, 期 1, 页码 1-6

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.02.046

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We assessed the effect of previous peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and stroke on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and sought to ascertain the effectiveness of evidence-based therapies in these patients. We used data from the multinational Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events. Patients were enrolled at 102 hospitals in 13 countries between April 1999 and September 2005. Patients presenting with ACS were stratified according to the presence of previous PAD, stroke, PAD and stroke, or neither. In-hospital analysis included 48,418 patients and 6-month analysis included 32,735 patients. The primary end point was all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac events during 6-month follow-up. Adverse in-hospital and 6-month events were lowest in patients with neither PAD nor stroke and highest in patients with PAD and stroke after adjustment for baseline demographics and co-morbidities. In-hospital mortality for the 4 groups (neither, PAD, stroke, PAD and stroke) was 4.5% versus 7.2% versus 8.9% versus 9.4% (p <0.001) and that for 6-month mortality was 3.9% versus 8.8% versus 9.3% versus 12%, and these differences persisted after accounting for differences in baseline characteristics. Use of evidence-based therapies was associated with significantly less morbidity and mortality in all ACS subgroups. In conclusion, outcomes after ACS are worse in patients with PAD or stroke, with the highest risk in patients with the 2 conditions and the use of evidence-based therapies are associated with improved outcomes in all ACS subgroups. (C) 2007 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

4.4
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