Suppr超能文献

心脏病专家与内科医生对不稳定型心绞痛患者的管理:治疗模式与结果

Cardiologist versus internist management of patients with unstable angina: treatment patterns and outcomes.

作者信息

Schreiber T L, Elkhatib A, Grines C L, O'Neill W W

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI 48073, USA.

出版信息

J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995 Sep;26(3):577-82. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(95)00214-O.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the impact of generalist versus specialist direction on the pattern of care and outcome in patients admitted to the hospital for unstable angina.

BACKGROUND

Physicians trained as internists or as cardiologists may have different approaches to treating patients with unstable angina.

METHODS

We reviewed a prospectively collected cohort of patients discharged with a diagnosis-related group (DRG) diagnosis of unstable angina from William Beaumont Hospital, a large community-based hospital in southeast Michigan. Of 890 consecutive patients, 225 were treated by internists and 665 by cardiologists. We compared these two groups with respect to patterns of use of established pharmacotherapies for unstable angina, diagnostic testing and clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Patients treated by internists less often had a previous cardiac history (53% vs. 80%, p < or = 0.0001). Internists were less likely to use aspirin (68% vs. 78%, p = 0.032), heparin (67% vs. 84%, p < or = 0.001) or beta-adrenergic blocking agents (18% vs. 30%, p < or = 0.004) in their initial management. Exercise tests were performed more frequently by internist-treated patients (37% vs. 22%, p < or = 0.001), but catheterization (27% vs. 61%, p < or = 0.0001) and angioplasty (7% vs. 40%, p < or = 0.0001) were utilized less frequently. The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar (11% vs. 9%) in the two groups, but the mortality rate tended to be higher (4.0% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.06) in the internist group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with unstable angina treated by internists were less likely to receive effective medical therapy or revascularization procedures and experienced a trend to poorer outcome. This study does not support a positive gatekeeper role for generalists in the treatment of unstable angina.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估通科医生与专科医生指导对因不稳定型心绞痛入院患者的治疗模式及预后的影响。

背景

接受内科或心脏病学培训的医生在治疗不稳定型心绞痛患者时可能有不同的方法。

方法

我们回顾了一组前瞻性收集的患者队列,这些患者因诊断相关组(DRG)诊断为不稳定型心绞痛而从密歇根州东南部的一家大型社区医院威廉·博蒙特医院出院。在890例连续患者中,225例由内科医生治疗,665例由心脏病专家治疗。我们比较了这两组在不稳定型心绞痛既定药物治疗的使用模式、诊断测试和临床结果方面的情况。

结果

由内科医生治疗的患者既往有心脏病史的情况较少(53%对80%,p≤0.0001)。内科医生在初始治疗中使用阿司匹林(68%对78%,p = 0.032)、肝素(67%对84%,p≤0.001)或β-肾上腺素能阻滞剂(18%对30%,p≤0.004)的可能性较小。由内科医生治疗的患者进行运动试验的频率更高(37%对22%,p≤0.001),但导管插入术(27%对61%,p≤0.0001)和血管成形术(7%对40%,p≤0.0001)的使用频率较低。两组心肌梗死的发生率相似(11%对9%),但内科医生组的死亡率往往更高(4.0%对1.8%,p = 0.06)。

结论

由内科医生治疗的不稳定型心绞痛患者接受有效药物治疗或血运重建手术的可能性较小,且预后有较差的趋势。本研究不支持通科医生在不稳定型心绞痛治疗中起积极的把关作用。

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