Krumholz H M, Friesinger G C, Cook E F, Lee T H, Rouan G W, Goldman L
Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994 Feb;42(2):127-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1994.tb04938.x.
To determine the relationship of age and the percentage of patients presenting to the emergency department with myocardial infarction who meet conventional electrocardiographic and time-to-presentation criteria for thrombolytic therapy.
Prospective cohort study.
Emergency departments of three university hospitals and four community hospitals.
Patients enrolled in the Multicenter Chest Pain Study, an investigation of patients aged 30 years or older presenting to the emergency department with the chief complaint of anterior, precordial, or left lateral chest pain unexplained by obvious local trauma or abnormalities on the chest radiograph.
None.
The frequency of patients who presented with conventional electrocardiographic and time-to-presentation criteria for thrombolysis.
Of a total of 12,140 patients who were enrolled in the Multicenter Chest Pain Study, 10,850 had information about their electrocardiogram and their time-to-presentation. Acute myocardial infarction occurred in 1,584 patients, 746 of whom were over age 65. Among patients presenting to the emergency department with acute myocardial infarction, the proportion who arrived within 6 hours of the onset of pain and had ST-segment elevation or pathologic Q-waves not known to be old decreased significantly with increasing age, from 34% in patients under 65 years to 18% for those 75 years and older. In addition, comorbidities that would have contraindicated thrombolytic therapy were present in an additional 12% of myocardial infarction patients who were older than 65 years.
Although other analyses have shown that thrombolytic therapy is cost-effective for eligible elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction, only a small percentage of very elderly patients who present to the emergency department with acute myocardial infarctions meet current eligibility criteria to receive it, so thrombolysis is unlikely to narrow the difference in mortality rates for young as compared with elderly patients with acute infarctions.
确定年龄与因心肌梗死就诊于急诊科且符合溶栓治疗常规心电图及就诊时间标准的患者百分比之间的关系。
前瞻性队列研究。
三家大学医院和四家社区医院的急诊科。
参加多中心胸痛研究的患者,该研究针对年龄在30岁及以上、因前胸、心前区或左胸外侧胸痛为主诉就诊于急诊科且无明显局部创伤或胸部X线异常可解释病因的患者。
无。
符合溶栓常规心电图及就诊时间标准的患者频率。
在参加多中心胸痛研究的总共12140例患者中,10850例有其心电图及就诊时间信息。1584例患者发生急性心肌梗死,其中746例年龄超过65岁。在因急性心肌梗死就诊于急诊科的患者中,疼痛发作后6小时内到达且有ST段抬高或病理性Q波(非陈旧性)的比例随年龄增加显著下降,65岁以下患者为34%,75岁及以上患者为18%。此外,65岁以上心肌梗死患者中另有12%存在溶栓治疗的禁忌合并症。
尽管其他分析表明,溶栓治疗对符合条件的老年急性心肌梗死患者具有成本效益,但因急性心肌梗死就诊于急诊科的高龄患者中只有一小部分符合当前接受溶栓治疗的条件,因此溶栓不太可能缩小急性梗死的年轻患者与老年患者之间的死亡率差异。