4.6 Article

Post-myocardial infarction smoking cessation counseling: Associations with immediate and late mortality in older Medicare patients

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 118, 期 3, 页码 269-275

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.12.007

关键词

myocardial infarctions; tobacco cessation; directive counseling; inpatients; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To assess the difference in immediate (30 and 60 days after admission) and late (2-year) mortality between those who received inpatient post-myocardial infarction smoking cessation counseling and those who did not receive counseling METHODS: We conducted an observational study of a national random sample of inpatients front 2971 U.S. acute care hospitals participating in the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project in 1994-95. Medicare beneficiaries who were Current smokers over age 65, admitted with a documented acute myocardial infarction, and who were discharged to home were included (n = 16 743). Our main outcome measures were early (30-, 60-day) and late (1-, 2-year) mortality. RESULTS: Smoking cessation counseling was documented during their index hospitalization for 41 % of patients. Compared with those not counseled, those who received inpatient counseling had lower 30-day (2.0% vs. 3.0%), 60-day (3.7% vs. 5.6%), and 2-year mortality (25.0% vs. 30%) (logrank P < 0.0001). After adjustment for demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, APACHE score, and receipt of treatments including aspirin, reperfusion, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, those receiving counseling were less likely to die within I year, but the effect was lost between I and 2 years [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.99 (0.91- 1.10)]. The greatest reduction in relative hazard (19%) was seen within 30 days [HR = 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.99)]. CONCLUSION: Immediate and long-term mortality rates were lower among those receiving inpatient smoking cessation Counseling. (c) 2005 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

4.6
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