Suppr超能文献

住院患者与门诊患者急性心肌梗死发病情况比较。

Inpatient versus outpatient onsets of acute myocardial infarction.

机构信息

AMIS Plus, Hirschengraben 84, CH-8001 Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Cardiology, Cardiology Clinic, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Cardiology Center, Klinik im Park, Seestrasse 220, CH-8027 Zurich, Switzerland.

出版信息

Eur J Intern Med. 2015 Jul;26(6):414-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2015.05.011. Epub 2015 May 30.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There are few studies on patients suffering acute myocardial infarction (AMI) when already in hospital for other reasons; therefore, this study aimed to compare patients with in-hospital-onset AMI admitted for either medical or surgical reasons versus patients with outpatient-onset AMI.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the AMIS Plus registry from 2002 to 2014 were analyzed. The main endpoint was in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Among 35,394 AMI patients, 356 (1%) had inpatient-onset AMI following hospital admission due to other pathologies (surgical 175, non-surgical 181). These patients were older (74 vs. 66 years; P<0.001), more often female (35% vs. 27%; P<0.001), had less frequently ST-elevation myocardial infarction (35.5% vs. 55.5%; P<0.001), but higher risk profiles: hypertension (83% vs. 62%; P<0.001), diabetes (28% vs. 20%; P=0.001), known coronary artery disease (54% vs. 35%; P<0.001), and more comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index above 1 in 51% vs. 22%; P<0.001) than those with outpatient-onset AMI. Percutaneous coronary intervention was less frequently applied (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.36-0.57), and they were less likely to be treated with aspirin (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.37-0.59), P2Y12 blockers (OR 0.42; 0.34-0.52) or statins (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.41-0.63). Crude mortality was higher (14.3% vs. 5.5%; P<0.001) and inpatient-onset AMI was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.63-3.39; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with in-hospital-onset AMI were at greater risk of death than those with outpatient-onset AMI. More work is needed to improve the identification of hospitalized patients at risk of AMI in order to provide the appropriate management.

摘要

背景

目前仅有少数研究关注已经因其他原因住院的急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者,因此,本研究旨在比较因医疗或外科原因住院的院内发生 AMI 患者与门诊发生 AMI 患者。

方法

对 2002 年至 2014 年 AMIS Plus 注册研究中的患者进行分析。主要终点为院内死亡率。

结果

在 35394 例 AMI 患者中,356 例(1%)因其他疾病入院后发生院内 AMI(外科原因 175 例,非外科原因 181 例)。这些患者年龄更大(74 岁比 66 岁;P<0.001),更常为女性(35%比 27%;P<0.001),ST 段抬高型心肌梗死比例较低(35.5%比 55.5%;P<0.001),但风险更高:高血压(83%比 62%;P<0.001)、糖尿病(28%比 20%;P=0.001)、已知冠心病(54%比 35%;P<0.001),且合并症更多(Charlson 合并症指数>1 的比例为 51%比 22%;P<0.001)。与门诊发生 AMI 患者相比,这些患者接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的比例较低(OR 0.45;95%CI 0.36-0.57),阿司匹林(OR 0.43;95%CI 0.37-0.59)、P2Y12 抑制剂(OR 0.42;0.34-0.52)和他汀类药物(OR 0.51;95%CI 0.41-0.63)的使用率较低。院内死亡率较高(14.3%比 5.5%;P<0.001),院内发生 AMI 是院内死亡的独立预测因素(OR 2.35;95%CI 1.63-3.39;P<0.001)。

结论

与门诊发生 AMI 患者相比,院内发生 AMI 患者的死亡风险更高。需要进一步努力以提高对住院患者发生 AMI 风险的识别,以便提供适当的治疗。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验