4.1 Article

Age and sex differences in presentation of symptoms among patients with acute coronary disease: the REACT trial

期刊

CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 399-407

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00019501-200007000-00004

关键词

acute coronary disease; symptoms; sex; age

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background There are few data on possible age and sex differences in presentation of symptoms for patients with acute coronary disease. Objective To investigate demographic differences in presentation of symptoms at the time of hospital presentation for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and unstable angina. Methods The medical records of patients who presented with chest pain and who also had diagnoses of AMI (n = 889) or unstable angina (n = 893) on discharge from 43 hospitals were reviewed as part of data collection activities of the Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment trial based in 10 pair-matched communities throughout the USA. Results Dyspnea (49%), arm pain (46%), sweating (35%), and nausea (33%) were commonly reported by men and women of all ages in addition to the presenting complaint of chest pain. After we had controlled for various characteristics through regression modeling, older persons with AMI were significantly less likely than were younger persons to complain of arm pain and sweating, and men were significantly less likely to report vomiting than were women. Among persons with unstable angina, arm pain and sweating were reported significantly less often by elderly patients, Nausea and back, neck, and jaw pain were more common complaints of women. Conclusions Results of this study suggest that there are differences between symptoms at presentation of men and women, and those in various age groups, hospitalized with acute coronary disease. Clinicians should be aware of these differences when diagnosing and managing patients suspected to have coronary heart disease. Coron Artery Dis 11:399-407 (C) 2000 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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

4.1
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