4.4 Article

Baseline characteristics, management practices, and in-hospital outcomes of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes in the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE)

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 90, 期 4, 页码 358-363

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02489-X

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) represents a heterogenous spectrum of conditions. The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) describes the epidemiology, management, and outcomes of patients with ACS. Data were collected from 11,543 patients enrolled in 14 countries. of these patients, 30% had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 25% had non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 38% had unstable angina pectoris, and 7% had other cardiac or noncardiac diagnoses. Over half of these patients (53%) were greater than or equal to65 years old. Reperfusion therapy was used in 62% of patients with STEMI. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 40% of these subjects during the index admission. Intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockers were used in 23%, 20%, and 7% of patients with STEMI, NSTEMI, and unstable angina, respectively (STEMI vs NSTEMI, p = 0.0018, and for either group vs unstable angina, p <0.001). Coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 4%, 10%, and 5% of patients, respectively (p <0.0001). Hospital case fatality rates were markedly different among patients with STEMI, NSTEMI, and unstable angina (7%, 6%, and 3%, respectively; STEMI vs NSTEMI, p = 0.0459, and for either group vs unstable angina, p <0.001). Congestive heart failure complicated the hospital course in 18%, 18%, and 10% of the patients, respectively (p <0.0001), and recurrent angina with ST-segment changes occurred before discharge in 10%, 10%, and 9% of patients, respectively (p = 0.2644). GRACE provides a detailed and comprehensive global description of the spectrum of patients with ACS. (C) 2002 by Excerpta Medica, Inc.

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