Kapral Moira K, Austin Peter C, Jeyakumar Geerthana, Hall Ruth, Chu Anna, Khan Anam M, Jin Albert Y, Martin Cally, Manuel Doug, Silver Frank L, Swartz Richard H, Tu Jack V
Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine (M.K.K., J.V.T.), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (M.K.K., P.C.A., J.V.T.), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019 Feb;12(2):e004973. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.004973.
Background Rural residence is associated with stroke incidence and mortality, but little is known about potential rural/urban differences in ambulatory stroke care. Methods and Results We used the CANHEART (Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team) cohort, created from linked administrative databases from the province of Ontario, Canada, and divided into primary (N=6 207 032) and secondary (N=75 823) prevention cohorts based on the absence or presence of prior stroke. We defined rural communities as those with a population size of ≤10 000 and within each of the primary and secondary prevention cohorts, compared cardiovascular risk factors and care between rural and urban areas. We then calculated sex-/age-standardized rates of stroke incidence and mortality per 1000 person-years between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2012 and used cause-specific hazard models to compare outcomes in rural versus urban areas adjusting for age, sex, income, ethnicity, smoking, physical activity and comorbid conditions, and accounting for the competing risk of death in the model for the occurrence of stroke incidence. In the primary prevention cohort, rural residents were less likely than urban ones to be screened for diabetes mellitus (70.9% versus 81.3%) and hyperlipidemia (66.2% versus 78.4%) and less likely to achieve diabetes mellitus control (hemoglobin A1c ≤7% in 51.3% versus 54.3%; P<0.001 for all comparisons). In the secondary prevention cohort, the prevalence and treatment of risk factors were similar in rural and urban residents. After adjustment for sociodemographic and comorbid conditions, rural residence was associated with higher rates of stroke and all-cause mortality in both the primary prevention (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] for stroke, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.09; aHR for mortality, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10) and the secondary prevention cohort (aHR for stroke, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19; aHR for mortality, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.11). Conclusions In this population-based study of over 6 million people with universal access to physician and hospital services, risk factors were more prevalent but less likely to be controlled in rural than in urban residents without prior stroke, whereas in those with prior stroke, risk factor prevalence and treatment were similar. Rural residence was associated with the rate of stroke and death even after adjustment for risk factors. Future efforts should focus not only on control of known vascular risk factors but also on addressing other determinants of health in rural communities.
农村居民与中风发病率和死亡率相关,但对于门诊中风护理中潜在的城乡差异知之甚少。方法与结果:我们使用了CANHEART(门诊护理研究团队心血管健康研究)队列,该队列由加拿大安大略省的关联行政数据库创建而成,并根据是否有中风病史分为一级预防队列(N = 6207032)和二级预防队列(N = 75823)。我们将农村社区定义为人口规模≤10000的社区,并在一级和二级预防队列中,比较农村和城市地区的心血管危险因素及护理情况。然后,我们计算了2008年1月1日至2012年12月31日期间每1000人年的性别/年龄标准化中风发病率和死亡率,并使用特定病因风险模型比较农村和城市地区的结果,对年龄、性别、收入、种族、吸烟、身体活动和合并症进行了调整,并在中风发病率模型中考虑了死亡的竞争风险。在一级预防队列中,农村居民接受糖尿病筛查(70.9% 对 81.3%)和高脂血症筛查(66.2% 对 78.4%)的可能性低于城市居民,实现糖尿病控制(糖化血红蛋白≤7%)的可能性也较低(51.3% 对 54.3%;所有比较P<0.001)。在二级预防队列中,农村和城市居民的危险因素患病率和治疗情况相似。在对社会人口统计学和合并症进行调整后,农村居民在一级预防队列(中风调整后风险比[aHR]为1.06;95%CI,1.04 - 1.09;死亡率aHR为1.09;95%CI,1.08 - 1.10)和二级预防队列(中风aHR为1.11;95%CI,1.02 - 1.19;死亡率aHR为1.07;95%CI,1.03 - 1.11)中的中风和全因死亡率均较高。结论:在这项基于人群的研究中,超过600万人可普遍获得医生和医院服务,在没有中风病史的农村居民中,危险因素更为普遍,但得到控制的可能性低于城市居民;而在有中风病史的居民中,危险因素的患病率和治疗情况相似。即使对危险因素进行了调整,农村居民的中风和死亡率仍然较高。未来的努力不仅应侧重于控制已知的血管危险因素,还应关注农村社区健康的其他决定因素。