4.7 Article

Similar outcome with an invasive strategy in men and women with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes From the Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART)

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 32, 期 24, 页码 3128-3136

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr349

关键词

NSTE ACS; Gender; Invasive strategy

资金

  1. County Council of Ostergotland
  2. National Board of Health and Welfare
  3. Swedish Society of Cardiology
  4. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To assess gender differences in outcome with an early invasive or non-invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS). Methods and results We included 46 455 patients [14 819 women (32%) and 31 636 men (68%)] from the SWEDEHEART register, with NSTE ACS, between 2000 and 2006, and followed them for 1 year. In the non-invasive strategy arm, the relative risk (RR) of death was (women vs. men) 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.94-1.11] and in the invasive strategy arm 1.12 (95% CI, 0.96-1.29). After adjustment for baseline differences between the genders, with propensity score and discharge medication, there was a similar trend towards better outcome among women in both the early non-invasive cohort [RR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.99)] and the early invasive cohort [RR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.76-1.06)], although it did not reach statistical significance in the early invasive cohort. Results were similar with the combined endpoint death/myocardial infarction. An early invasive treatment was associated with a marked, and similar, mortality reduction in women [RR 0.46 (95% CI, 0.38-0.55)] and men [RR 0.45 (95% CI, 0.40-0.52)], without interaction with gender. Conclusion In this large cohort of patients with NSTE ACS, reflecting real-life management, women and men had similar and better outcome associated with an invasive strategy.

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