Frances C D, Shlipak M G, Noguchi H, Heidenreich P A, McClellan M
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2000 Dec;35(5 Pt 2):1093-116.
To determine the effect of treatment by a cardiologist on mortality of elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI, heart attack), accounting for both measured confounding using risk-adjustment techniques and residual unmeasured confounding with instrumental variables (IV) methods.
DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Medical chart data and longitudinal administrative hospital records and death records were obtained for 161,558 patients aged > or =65 admitted to a nonfederal acute care hospital with AMI from April 1994 to July 1995. Our principal measure of significant cardiologist treatment was whether a patient was admitted by a cardiologist. We use supplemental data to explore whether our analysis would differ substantially using alternative definitions of significant cardiologist treatment.
This retrospective cohort study compared results using least squares (LS) multivariate regression with results from IV methods that accounted for additional unmeasured patient characteristics. Primary outcomes were 30-day and one-year mortality, and secondary outcomes included treatment with medications and revascularization procedures.
DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Medical charts for the initial hospital stay of each AMI patient underwent a comprehensive abstraction, including dates of hospitalization, admitting physician, demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, severity of clinical presentation, electrocardiographic and other diagnostic test results, contraindications to therapy, and treatments before and after AMI.
Patients admitted by cardiologists had fewer comorbid conditions and less severe AMIs. These patients had a 10 percent (95 percent CI: 9.5-10.8 percent) lower absolute mortality rate at one year. After multivariate adjustment with LS regression, the adjusted mortality difference was 2 percent (95 percent CI: 1.4-2.6 percent). Using IV methods to provide additional adjustment for unmeasured differences in risk, we found an even smaller, statistically insignificant association between physician specialty and one-year mortality, relative risk (RR) 0.96 (0.88-1.04). Patients admitted by a cardiologist were also significantly more likely to have a cardiologist consultation within the first day of admission and during the initial hospital stay, and also had a significantly larger share of their physician bills for inpatient treatment from cardiologists. IV analysis of treatments showed that patients treated by cardiologists were more likely to undergo revascularization procedures and to receive thrombolytic therapy, aspirin, and calcium channel-blockers, but less likely to receive beta-blockers.
In a large population of elderly patients with AMI, we found significant treatment differences but no significant incremental mortality benefit associated with treatment by cardiologists.
确定心脏病专家的治疗对老年急性心肌梗死(AMI,心脏病发作)患者死亡率的影响,同时考虑使用风险调整技术测量的混杂因素以及使用工具变量(IV)方法处理的残留未测量混杂因素。
数据来源/研究背景:获取了1994年4月至1995年7月期间入住一家非联邦急症医院且年龄≥65岁的161,558例AMI患者的病历数据、纵向医院管理记录和死亡记录。我们对心脏病专家进行有效治疗的主要衡量标准是患者是否由心脏病专家收治。我们使用补充数据来探讨使用心脏病专家有效治疗的替代定义时,我们的分析是否会有显著差异。
这项回顾性队列研究将最小二乘法(LS)多变量回归的结果与IV方法的结果进行了比较,IV方法考虑了额外未测量的患者特征。主要结局是30天和1年死亡率,次要结局包括药物治疗和血运重建手术。
数据收集/提取方法:对每位AMI患者首次住院期间的病历进行了全面摘要,包括住院日期、收治医生、人口统计学特征、合并症、临床表现严重程度、心电图及其他诊断检查结果、治疗禁忌症以及AMI前后的治疗情况。
由心脏病专家收治的患者合并症较少,AMI病情较轻。这些患者1年时的绝对死亡率降低了10%(95%置信区间:9.5 - 10.8%)。经LS回归进行多变量调整后,调整后的死亡率差异为2%(95%置信区间:1.4 - 2.6%)。使用IV方法对未测量的风险差异进行额外调整后,我们发现医生专业与1年死亡率之间的关联更小,且无统计学意义,相对风险(RR)为0.96(0.88 - 1.04)。由心脏病专家收治的患者在入院第一天和住院初期也更有可能接受心脏病专家会诊,并且他们住院治疗的医生费用中,心脏病专家收取的费用所占比例也显著更高。对治疗的IV分析表明,由心脏病专家治疗的患者更有可能接受血运重建手术,并接受溶栓治疗、阿司匹林和钙通道阻滞剂,但接受β受体阻滞剂的可能性较小。
在大量老年AMI患者中,我们发现了显著的治疗差异,但心脏病专家的治疗并未带来显著的额外死亡率益处。