Beck Christine A, Penrod John, Gyorkos Theresa W, Shapiro Stan, Pilote Louise
Division of Clinical Epidemiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Health Serv Res. 2003 Dec;38(6 Pt 1):1423-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2003.00186.x.
Previous U.S. studies suggest that the incremental ("marginal") use of the aggressive approach to care for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients differing only in their distance to hospitals offering aggressive care may be associated with small mortality benefits. We hypothesized that the marginal benefits should be larger in Canada, as the country is operating on a lower margin because the approach to care is more conservative overall.
This retrospective study used administrative data of hospital admissions and health services for all patients admitted for a first AMI in Quebec in 1988 (n = 8,674). We used differential distances to hospitals offering aggressive care as instrumental variables when measuring mortality up to four years after AMI.
Of the 4,422 subjects who were > or = 65 years old, 11 percent received cardiac catheterization within 90 days after admission. In a previous study that applied similar methodology to the 1987 U.S. Medicare population, 23 percent of subjects received catheterization within 90 days. As in the U.S. study, we found that subjects living closer to hospitals offering aggressive care were more likely to receive aggressive care than subjects living further away (26 percent versus 19 percent received cardiac catheterization within 90 days; 95 percent CI: 5 percent to 9 percent). Unlike the U.S. study, we found no differences in mortality across the "close" versus "far" differential distance groups (unadjusted differences at one year: 1 percent; 95 percent CI: -1 percent to 3 percent). This absence of association held in elderly (> or = 65 years) and younger age groups. Adjusted results also showed no differences between subjects receiving aggressive versus conservative care (at one year: 4 percent; 95 percent CI: -11 percent to 20 percent).
Contrary to our hypothesis, but consistent with results from numerous randomized trials and observational studies, we cannot confirm that, on the margin, the aggressive approach to post-AMI care is associated with mortality benefits in Canada.
美国此前的研究表明,对于仅在距离提供积极治疗的医院远近方面存在差异的急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者,采用积极治疗方法的增量(“边际”)使用可能与较小的死亡率降低益处相关。我们推测,在加拿大,这种边际益处应该更大,因为该国总体上治疗方法较为保守,运营利润率较低。
这项回顾性研究使用了1988年魁北克所有首次因AMI入院患者的医院入院和医疗服务管理数据(n = 8674)。在测量AMI后长达四年的死亡率时,我们将到提供积极治疗的医院的不同距离用作工具变量。
在4422名年龄≥65岁的受试者中,11%在入院后90天内接受了心导管插入术。在之前一项对1987年美国医疗保险人群应用类似方法的研究中,23%的受试者在90天内接受了导管插入术。与美国的研究一样,我们发现居住在距离提供积极治疗的医院较近的受试者比居住在较远的受试者更有可能接受积极治疗(26%对19%在90天内接受了心导管插入术;95%置信区间:5%至9%)。与美国的研究不同,我们发现在“近”与“远”的不同距离组之间死亡率没有差异(一年时未调整差异:1%;95%置信区间:-1%至3%)。这种关联缺失在老年(≥65岁)和年轻年龄组中均成立。调整后的结果也显示接受积极治疗与保守治疗的受试者之间没有差异(一年时:4%;95%置信区间:-11%至20%)。
与我们的假设相反,但与众多随机试验和观察性研究的结果一致,我们无法证实,在加拿大,AMI后护理的积极治疗方法在边际上与死亡率降低益处相关。