4.7 Article

Temporal trends of the gaps in post-myocardial infarction secondary prevention strategies of co-morbid and elderly populations vs. younger counterparts: an analysis of three successive cohorts between 2003 and 2008

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 515-522

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr410

关键词

Epidemiology; Cardiovascular prevention; Co-morbidities; Elderly

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epidemiological studies reported two contrasting trends: on one hand, a significant improvement in the use of evidence-based treatments of patients discharged with a myocardial infarction (MI). On the other hand, the increasing number of elderly and co-morbid patients who are usually less treated. The aim of this study is to examine whether improvements in the treatment of MI are homogeneously distributed throughout all subgroups of patients. Based on record linkage of administrative registers, 21 423 patients discharged with MI in three different periods (2003, 2005, and 2007), were identified and followed up for major clinical events up to 1 year. Using as a reference temporal category those patients discharged in 2003 (odds ratios, 95 confidence intervals) and as a demographic category male patients aged 75 years (1.00), the study identified: in-hospital mortality significantly decreased in all periods and in all groups of patients; out-of-hospital mortality decreased only in younger patients and not in older patients; prescription of evidence-based treatments increased in all periods for all patients; however, the magnitude of improvement was mostly concentrated in younger patients. Although there was a mean improvement in the treatment and outcome of patients discharged from an MI, most of these benefits were strongly concentrated in younger, healthier patients. Old and co-morbid populationsalthough representing a substantial proportion of the burden of diseasereceived significant less attention and barely improved their survival.

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