4.7 Article

Less use of standard guideline-based treatment of myocardial infarction in patients with chronic kidney disease: a Danish nation-wide cohort study

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 34, 期 37, 页码 2916-+

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht220

关键词

Chronic kidney disease; Renal replacement therapy; Myocardial infarction; Angiography; Coronary revascularization; Pharmacological treatment

资金

  1. Danish Society of Nephrology
  2. Danish Kidney Association
  3. Helen and Ejnar Bjoernow Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this Danish nationwide study was to evaluate the treatment of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with non-end-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) and in patients requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT). Upgraded guidelines for the management of MI were implemented around 2004; hence, the treatment of MI in the time periods before and after 2004 was compared in order to evaluate the impact for patients with CKD. By linking nationwide registries by the personal registration number, we identified patients admitted to Danish hospitals with first time MI in the period 200009 (79 585 with no renal disease, 3144 with non-end-stage CKD, and 725 requiring RRT). Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the chance of invasive treatment within 60 days after MI and the chance of filling prescriptions on recommended post-MI drugs within 90 days before and after 2004. Significantly less use of relevant MI treatment in patients with non-end-stage CKD and patients requiring RRT compared with patients with no renal disease were seen; however, the absolute frequencies of invasive procedures and filled prescriptions on post-MI drugs increased after 2004 in all patients. After 2004, invasive and pharmacological treatment of first-time MI improved in patients with non-end-stage CKD and patients requiring RRT; however, all CKD patients were less treated with standard MI care compared with patients with no renal disease.

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