4.4 Article

Reasons for higher in-hospital mortality >24 hours after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in women compared with men

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 88, 期 5, 页码 473-477

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9149(01)01721-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Women have a higher in-hospital mortality rate than men after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). To determine reasons for this, we analyzed the outcome of PTCA at our institution from 1989 to 1995 for 5,989 patients (2,101 women). Women were older than men (66.8 +/- 10.9 vs 61.0 +/- 11.2 years, respectively; p <0.0001) and more likely to have diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or a history of congestive heart failure than men. In-laboratory complications at the time of PTCA were similar for women and men. During the first 24 hours after PTCA, women were more likely than men to become hypotensive (0.33% vs 0.08%, p = 0.04) and had a higher rate of vascular injury than men (1.6% vs 0.6%, p <0.001). More than 24 hours after the procedure, women had a significantly higher mortality rate (1.2% vs 0.52%, p = 0.017), which was no longer significantly different after adjustment for age (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.32). Multivariate correlates of death > 24 hours after PTCA were: age, a prior history of congestive heart failure, vascular injury, and use of thrombolytic agents. Of those dying < 24 hours after the procedure, 67% of women suffered a noncardiac-related death compared with only 10% of men (p < 0.001). The noncardiac death rate was 0.8% for women and 0.05% for men. These deaths were related to renal failure, vascular complications, bleeding, hypotension, and stroke, especially hemorrhagic stroke. In conclusion, immediate procedural complications at PTCA were similar for women and men; however, mortality was higher for women > 24 hours:after PTCA and before discharge due to a higher rate of noncardiac death. (C) 2001 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