4.3 Article

Long-Term Survival and Recurrence After Acute Myocardial Infarction in England, 2004 to 2010

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.964700

关键词

myocardial infarction; survival; prognosis; epidemiology

资金

  1. Rhodes Trust
  2. Medical Research Council
  3. British Heart Foundation
  4. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
  5. NIHR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-There are limited population-based national data on prognosis in survivors of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), particularly on long-term survival and the risk of recurrence. Methods and Results-Record linkage of hospital and mortality data identified 387 452 individuals in England who were admitted to hospital with a main diagnosis of AMI between 2004 and 2010 and who survived for at least 30 days. Seven years after an AMI, the risk of death from any cause in survivors of first or recurrent AMI was, respectively, 2 and 3 times higher than that in the English general population of equivalent age. For all survivors of a first AMI, the risk of a second AMI was highest during the first year and the cumulative risk increased more gradually thereafter. For men, 1- and 7-year cumulative risks were 5.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5-5.7) and 13.9% (95% CI, 13.7-14.1); for women, they were 7.2% (95% CI, 7.1-7.4) and 16.2% (95% CI, 16.0-16.5). Older age, higher deprivation, no revascularization procedures, and presence of comorbidities were associated with higher recurrence risk. Conclusions-Survivors of both first and recurrent AMI remained at a significantly higher risk of death compared with the general population for at least 7 years after the event. For survivors of first AMI, the influence of predisposing factors for second AMI lessened with time after the initial event. The results reinforce the importance of acute clinical care and secondary prevention in improving long-term prognosis of hospitalized AMI patients. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012; 5: 532-540.)

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