Department of Cardiology, North Denmark Regional Hospital, Hjørring, Denmark.
Centre for Clinical Research, North Denmark Regional Hospital, Hjørring, Denmark.
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 27;15(7):e0236322. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236322. eCollection 2020.
The usefulness of mortality statistics relies on the validity of death certificate diagnosis. However, diagnosing the causal sequence of conditions leading to death is not simple. We examined diagnostic support for fatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and investigated its association with regional variation.
From Danish nationwide registers, we identified the study population (N = 3,244,051) of whom 36,669 individuals were recorded with AMI as the underlying cause-of-death between 2002 and 2015. We included clinical diagnoses, procedures, and claimed prescriptions related to atherosclerotic disease to evaluate the level of diagnostic support for fatal AMI in three diagnostic groups (Definite; Plausible; Uncertain). Adjusted mortality rates, rate ratios, and odds ratios were estimated for each AMI category, stratified by hospital region using multivariable regression models. More than one-third (N = 12,827, 35%) of deaths reported as fatal AMI had uncertain diagnostic support. The largest regional variation in AMI mortality rate ratios, varying from 1.16 (95%CI:1.02;1.31) to 1.62 (95%CI:1.43;1.83), was found among cases with uncertain diagnostic supportive data. Substantial inter-regional differences in the degree to which death occurs outside hospital [OR: 1.01 (95%CI:0.92;1.12) - 1.49 (95%CI:1.36;1.63)] and general practitioners determining the cause-of-death at home were present. Minor regional differences [OR: 0.96 (95%CI:0.85;1.07) - 1.16 (95%CI:1.04;1.29)] in in-hospital AMI mortality were observed.
There is significant regional variation associated with recording AMI as a cause-of-death. This variation is predominately based on death certificate diagnoses without diagnostic supportive evidence. Studies of fatal AMI should include a stratification on supportive evidence of the diagnosis.
死亡率统计数据的有用性依赖于死亡证明诊断的准确性。然而,诊断导致死亡的疾病的因果顺序并不简单。我们检查了致命性急性心肌梗死(AMI)的诊断支持,并研究了其与区域差异的关系。
我们从丹麦全国登记处确定了研究人群(N=3244051),其中 2002 年至 2015 年间有 36669 人记录为 AMI 作为根本死因。我们纳入了与动脉粥样硬化疾病相关的临床诊断、程序和索赔处方,以评估三个诊断组(确定的;合理的;不确定的)中致命性 AMI 的诊断支持程度。使用多变量回归模型,按医院区域对每个 AMI 类别进行分层,估计每个 AMI 类别的调整死亡率、率比和优势比。报告为致命性 AMI 的死亡中,超过三分之一(N=12827,35%)的死亡具有不确定的诊断支持。在具有不确定诊断支持数据的病例中,AMI 死亡率率比的区域差异最大,范围从 1.16(95%CI:1.02;1.31)到 1.62(95%CI:1.43;1.83)。在死亡发生在医院外的程度上存在明显的地区差异[OR:1.01(95%CI:0.92;1.12)-1.49(95%CI:1.36;1.63)]和全科医生在家中确定死因,以及在医院内 AMI 死亡率方面存在较小的地区差异[OR:0.96(95%CI:0.85;1.07)-1.16(95%CI:1.04;1.29)]。
与将 AMI 记录为死因相关的地区差异很大。这种差异主要基于没有诊断支持证据的死亡证明诊断。致命性 AMI 的研究应包括对诊断支持证据的分层。