Maddox Thomas M, Reid Kimberly J, Rumsfeld John S, Spertus John A
Denver VAMC/University of Colorado Health Science Center, Denver, CO, USA.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2007 Sep 12;7:28. doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-7-28.
Unstable angina (UA) patients have lower mortality and reinfarction risks than ST-elevation (STEMI) or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients and, accordingly, receive less aggressive treatment. Little is known, however, about the health status outcomes (angina, physical function, and quality of life) of UA versus MI patients among survivors of an ACS hospitalization.
In a cohort of 1,192 consecutively enrolled ACS survivors from two Kansas City hospitals, we evaluated the associations between ACS presentation (UA, NSTEMI, and STEMI) and one-year health status (angina, physical functioning and quality of life), one-year cardiac rehospitalization rates, and two-year mortality outcomes, using multivariable regression modeling.
After multivariable adjustment for demographic, hospital, co-morbidity, baseline health status, and treatment characteristics, UA patients had a greater prevalence of angina at 1 year than STEMI patients (adjusted relative risk [RR] = 1.42; 95% CI [1.06, 1.90]) and similar rates as NSTEMI patients (adjusted RR = 1.1; 95% CI [0.85, 1.42]). In addition, UA patients fared no better than MI patients in Short Form-12 physical component scores (UA vs. STEMI score difference -0.05 points; 95% CI [-2.41, 2.3]; UA vs. NSTEMI score difference -1.91 points; 95% CI [-4.01, 0.18]) or Seattle Angina Questionnaire quality of life scores (UA vs. STEMI score difference -1.39 points; 95% CI [-5.63, 2.85]; UA vs. NSTEMI score difference -0.24 points 95% CI [-4.01, 3.54]). Finally, UA patients had similar rehospitalization rates as MI patients (UA vs. STEMI adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.31; 95% CI [0.86, 1.99]; UA vs. NSTEMI adjusted HR = 1.03; 95% CI [0.73, 1.47]), despite better 2-year survival (UA vs. STEMI adjusted HR = 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.28, 0.95]; UA vs. NSTEMI adjusted HR = 0.40; 95% CI [0.24, 0.65]).
Although UA patients have better survival rates, they have similar or worse one-year health status outcomes and cardiac rehospitalization rates as compared with MI patients. Clinicians should be aware of the adverse health status outcome risks for UA patients and consider close monitoring for the opportunity to improve their health status and minimize the need for subsequent rehospitalization.
与ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)或非ST段抬高型心肌梗死(NSTEMI)患者相比,不稳定型心绞痛(UA)患者的死亡率和再梗死风险较低,因此接受的治疗也不那么积极。然而,对于急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)住院幸存者中UA患者与心肌梗死(MI)患者的健康状况结局(心绞痛、身体功能和生活质量)知之甚少。
在来自堪萨斯城两家医院的1192名连续入组的ACS幸存者队列中,我们使用多变量回归模型评估了ACS表现(UA、NSTEMI和STEMI)与一年健康状况(心绞痛、身体功能和生活质量)、一年心脏再住院率以及两年死亡率结局之间的关联。
在对人口统计学、医院、合并症、基线健康状况和治疗特征进行多变量调整后,UA患者在1年时心绞痛的患病率高于STEMI患者(调整后的相对风险[RR]=1.42;95%置信区间[CI][1.06,1.90]),与NSTEMI患者相似(调整后的RR=1.1;95%CI[0.85,1.42])。此外,在简短健康调查问卷12项身体成分评分方面,UA患者并不比MI患者表现更好(UA与STEMI评分差异为-0.05分;95%CI[-2.41,2.3];UA与NSTEMI评分差异为-1.91分;95%CI[-4.01,0.18]),在西雅图心绞痛问卷生活质量评分方面也是如此(UA与STEMI评分差异为-1.39分;95%CI[-5.63,2.85];UA与NSTEMI评分差异为-0.24分,95%CI[-4.01,3.54])。最后,UA患者的再住院率与MI患者相似(UA与STEMI调整后的风险比[HR]=1.31;95%CI[0.86,1.99];UA与NSTEMI调整后的HR=1.03;95%CI[0.73,1.47]),尽管2年生存率更高(UA与STEMI调整后的HR=0.51;95%置信区间(CI)[0.28,0.95];UA与NSTEMI调整后的HR=0.40;95%CI[0.24,0.65])。
尽管UA患者生存率更高,但与MI患者相比,他们一年的健康状况结局和心脏再住院率相似或更差。临床医生应意识到UA患者存在不良健康状况结局风险,并考虑密切监测,以便有机会改善他们的健康状况并尽量减少后续再住院的需求。