4.7 Article

Survival trends in men and women with heart failure of ischaemic and non-ischaemic origin: data for the period 1987-2003 from the Swedish Hospital Discharge Registry

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 671-678

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehn541

关键词

Heart failure; Mortality; Gender; Ischaemic; Non-ischaemic

资金

  1. The Swedish Research Council
  2. The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research
  3. The Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation
  4. Goteborg and Southern Bohus County
  5. The Goteborg Medical Society
  6. The Cardiology Research Foundation of the Department of Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Ostra

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate gender-specific trends in long-term mortality in patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF). The Swedish hospital discharge and cause-specific death registers were used to calculate age- and gender-specific trends for long-term prognosis in patients hospitalized with a principal diagnosis of HF from 1987 to 2003. Mortality decreased, mainly during 1987-95, with no further decrease after 2001. Survival in men improved more than in women (P-value for interaction 0.0003), particularly among patients aged < 65 years (P-value for interaction: age, gender, and year of hospitalization 0.0003) and more for patients with ischaemic when compared with non-ischaemic HF (P-value for interaction < 0.0001). Among men < 65 years, the hazard ratio (HR) of dying within 3 years after discharge was 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.36-0.45) during 1999-2001 when compared with 1987-89. The corresponding HR for women was 0.58 (0.48-0.69). For those discharged during 1999-2001, almost 20% of the patients aged 35-64 years and 40% of those aged 65-84 years died within 3 years. Long-term mortality in HF in Sweden decreased more for men than for women and more for ischaemic than non-ischaemic HF. There was no further decrease after 2001. Long-term mortality after a first hospitalization remained high.

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

4.7
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