4.2 Article

Sex-related characteristics in hospitalized patients with acute coronary syndromes - the Greek Study of Acute Coronary Syndromes (GREECS)

期刊

HEART AND VESSELS
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 9-15

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00380-006-0932-2

关键词

acute coronary syndromes; sex-specific distribution; risk factors; Greece; GREECS study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied the sex-specific distribution of various factors in hospitalized patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), as well as the annual incidence and the in-hospital and short-term outcomes in males and females. A sample of six hospitals located in Greek urban and rural regions was selected. In these hospitals we recorded almost all nonfatal admissions with a first event of ACS, from October 2003 to September 2004. Sociodemographic, clinical, dietary, and other lifestyle characteristics were recorded. A total of 2172 patients were included in the study (1649, 76% male and 523, 24% female). The annual incidence rate was almost three times higher in males than in females (34 per 10000 males and 10.9 per 10000 females). The highest frequency of events was observed in winter, in both sexes. Females had higher in-hospital mortality rate as compared to males (5.7% vs 3.2%, P = 0.007), while the 30-day mortality and rehospitalization rate was 17% in male and 16% in female patients. The most common discharged diagnosis for males was Q-wave myocardial infraction (35%), while females were more likely to suffer from unstable angina (42%). Females were older than males, waited longer between seeking and receiving medical advice, and were more likely to have a history of hypertension, obesity, and diabetes mellitus as compared to males. On the other hand, males were more likely to be smokers, to follow a more typical Mediterranean diet, and to be more physically active (P < 0.05). We revealed a sex-related difference in the profile of clinical characteristics and other cardiovascular risk factors in hospitalized patients for ACS.

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

4.2
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