4.3 Article

Age and Sex Differences in Duration of Prehospital Delay in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction A Systematic Review

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.109.884361

关键词

acute myocardial infarction; prehospital delay; age and sex differences; systematic review

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [RO1 HL35434]
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL035434] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in American men and women. Although there have been dramatic changes in the management of patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) over the past several decades, a considerable proportion of patients with AMI continue to delay seeking medical care in a timely manner. This review provides an overview of the published literature that has examined age and sex differences in extent of prehospital delay in patients hospitalized with AMI. Methods and Results-A systematic review of the literature from 1960 to 2008, including publications that provided data on duration of prehospital delay in patients hospitalized with AMI, was conducted. A total of 44 articles (42 studies) were included in the present analysis. The majority of studies showed that in patients hospitalized with AMI, women and older persons were more likely to arrive at the hospital later than men and younger persons. Several factors associated with duration of prehospital delay, including sociodemographic, medical history, clinical, and contextual characteristics differed according to sex. Conclusions-The elderly and women were more likely to exhibit longer delays in seeking medical care after the development of symptoms suggestive of AMI compared with other groups. Further research is needed to more fully understand the reasons for delay in these vulnerable groups. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010; 3: 82-92.)

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

4.3
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