Preventive Cardiology and Sports Medicine, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.
Regional Center for Cardiovascular Disease, Lutsk City Hospital, Lutsk, Ukraine.
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 11;7(8):e012715. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012715.
Hospital-based data on the impact of socioeconomic environment on long-term survival after myocardial infarction (MI) are lacking. We compared outcome and quality of secondary prevention in patients after MI living in three different socioeconomic environments including patients from three tertiary-care teaching hospitals with similar service population size in Switzerland, Poland and Ukraine.
This is a prospective cohort study of patients with a first MI in three different tertiary-care teaching hospitals in Bern (Switzerland), Gdansk (Poland) and Lutsk (Ukraine) during the acute phase in the year 2010 and follow-up of these patients with a questionnaire and, if necessary, telephone interviews 3.5 years after the acute event. The study cohort comprises all consecutive patients hospitalised in every one of the three study centres during the year 2010 for a first MI in the age ≤75 years who survived ≥30 days.
The proportion of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was high in Gdansk (Poland) (80%) and in Lutsk (Ukraine) (74%), while the ratio of STEMIs to non-STEMIs was nearly 50:50 in Bern (Switzerland) (50.6% STEMIs). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was the first choice therapy both in Bern (Switzerland) (100%) and in Gdansk (Poland) (92%), while it was not performed at all in Lutsk (Ukraine). We found substantial differences in treatment and also in secondary prevention interventions including cardiac rehabilitation. All-cause mortality at 3.5 year follow-up was 4.6% in Bern (Switzerland), 8.5% in Gdansk (Poland) and 14.6% in Lutsk (Ukraine).
Substantial differences in treatment and secondary prevention measures according to low-income, middle-income and high-income socioeconomic situation are associated with a threefold difference in mortality 3.5 years after the acute event. Countries with low socioeconomic environment should increase efforts and be supported to improve care including secondary prevention in particular for MI patients. A greater number of PCIs per million inhabitants itself does not guarantee lower mortality scores.
目前缺乏基于医院的数据来研究社会经济环境对心肌梗死(MI)患者长期生存的影响。我们比较了在瑞士、波兰和乌克兰的 3 家三级教学医院接受治疗的 MI 患者在不同社会经济环境下的预后和二级预防质量,这些患者具有相似的服务人群规模。
这是一项前瞻性队列研究,纳入了 2010 年在瑞士伯尔尼、波兰格但斯克和乌克兰卢茨克的 3 家三级教学医院因首次 MI 而住院的患者。在急性发作期间,对这些患者进行问卷调查,必要时进行电话访谈,在急性事件发生 3.5 年后进行随访。研究队列包括在 2010 年期间,在这 3 个研究中心中每一个中心因首次 MI 住院且存活时间≥30 天的年龄≤75 岁的所有连续患者。
格但斯克(波兰)(80%)和卢茨克(乌克兰)(74%)的 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者比例较高,而伯尔尼(瑞士)(STEMI 与非 STEMI 的比例为近 50:50)(50.6%STEMI)。在伯尔尼(瑞士)(100%)和格但斯克(波兰)(92%)中,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)是首选治疗方法,而在卢茨克(乌克兰)中则根本未进行 PCI。我们发现治疗方法以及包括心脏康复在内的二级预防干预措施方面存在实质性差异。伯尔尼(瑞士)3.5 年随访的全因死亡率为 4.6%,格但斯克(波兰)为 8.5%,卢茨克(乌克兰)为 14.6%。
根据低收入、中等收入和高收入社会经济情况的不同,治疗和二级预防措施存在显著差异,与急性事件发生后 3.5 年的死亡率存在三倍差异相关。社会经济环境较低的国家应加大努力并得到支持,以改善医疗服务,特别是 MI 患者的二级预防。每百万居民进行的 PCI 数量增加本身并不能保证死亡率降低。