Stafford Randall S, Monti Veronica, Ma Jun
Program on Prevention Outcomes and Practices, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America.
PLoS Med. 2005 Dec;2(12):e353. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020353. Epub 2005 Nov 15.
Despite the proven benefits of aspirin therapy in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), utilization rates of aspirin remain suboptimal in relation to recommendations. We studied national trends of aspirin use among intermediate- to high-risk patients in the US ambulatory care settings and compared the priority given to aspirin versus statins for CVD risk reduction. We also examined patient and health care provider contributors to the underuse of aspirin.
We used the 1993-2003 US National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to estimate aspirin use by cardiovascular risk. Physician-noted cardiovascular diseases defined high risk. Intermediate risk was defined as having diabetes mellitus or multiple major risk factors. The proportion of patient visits in which aspirin was reported increased from 21.7% (95% confidence interval: 18.8%-24.6%) in 1993-1994 to 32.8% (25.2%-40.4%) in 2003 for the high-risk category, 3.5% (2.0%-5.0%) to 11.7% (7.8%-15.7%) for visits by patients diagnosed with diabetes, and 3.6% (2.6%-4.6%) to 16.3% (11.4%-21.2%) for those with multiple CVD risk factors. Beginning in 1997-1998, statins were prioritized over aspirin as prophylactic therapy for reducing CVD risk, and the gaps remained wide through 2003. In addition to elevated CVD risk, greater aspirin use was independently associated with advanced age, male gender, cardiologist care, and care in hospital outpatient departments.
Improvements in use of aspirin in US ambulatory care for reducing risks of CVD were at best modest during the period under study, particularly for secondary prevention, where the strongest evidence and most explicit guidelines exist. Aspirin is more underused than statins despite its more favorable cost-effectiveness. Aggressive and targeted interventions are needed to enhance provider and patient adherence to consensus guidelines for CVD risk reduction.
尽管阿司匹林治疗在心血管疾病(CVD)的一级和二级预防中已证实具有益处,但与推荐水平相比,阿司匹林的使用率仍不理想。我们研究了美国门诊医疗环境中中高危患者使用阿司匹林的全国趋势,并比较了在降低CVD风险方面给予阿司匹林与他汀类药物的优先程度。我们还研究了导致阿司匹林使用不足的患者和医疗服务提供者因素。
我们使用1993 - 2003年美国国家门诊医疗调查和国家医院门诊医疗调查,根据心血管风险来估计阿司匹林的使用情况。医生记录的心血管疾病定义为高风险。中度风险定义为患有糖尿病或有多种主要风险因素。在高风险类别中,报告使用阿司匹林的患者就诊比例从1993 - 1994年的21.7%(95%置信区间:18.8% - 24.6%)增至2003年的32.8%(25.2% - 40.4%);被诊断为糖尿病的患者就诊比例从3.5%(2.0% - 5.0%)增至11.7%(7.8% - 15.7%);有多种CVD风险因素的患者就诊比例从3.6%(2.6% - 4.6%)增至16.3%(11.4% - 21.2%)。从1997 - 1998年开始,他汀类药物在降低CVD风险方面被优先用作预防性治疗,到2003年这种差距仍然很大。除了CVD风险升高外,阿司匹林使用量增加还与高龄、男性、心脏病专家诊疗以及医院门诊部诊疗独立相关。
在本研究期间,美国门诊医疗中阿司匹林在降低CVD风险方面的使用改善充其量只是适度的,特别是在二级预防方面,而二级预防有最有力的证据和最明确的指南。尽管阿司匹林具有更有利的成本效益,但它比他汀类药物使用更少。需要积极且有针对性的干预措施,以提高医疗服务提供者和患者对降低CVD风险的共识指南的依从性。