McLaughlin T J, Soumerai S B, Willison D J, Gurwitz J H, Borbas C, Guadagnoli E, McLaughlin B, Morris N, Cheng S C, Hauptman P J, Antman E, Casey L, Asinger R, Gobel F
Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass, USA.
Arch Intern Med. 1996 Apr 8;156(7):799-805.
Evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have been published and disseminated by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association. Few studies have examined the rates of adherence to these guidelines in eligible populations and the influence of age and gender on highly effective AMI treatments in community hospital settings.
Medical records of 2409 individuals admitted to 37 Minnesota hospitals between October 1992 and July 1993 for AMI, suspected AMI, or rule-out AMI, and meeting electrocardiographic, laboratory, and clinical criteria suggestive of AMI were reviewed to determine the proportion of eligible patients who received thrombolytic, beta-blocker, aspirin, and lidocaine hydrochloride therapy. The effects of patient age, gender, and hospital teaching status on the use of these treatments were estimated using logistic regression models.
Eligibility for treatment ranged from 68% (n=1627) for aspirin therapy, 38% (n=906) for lidocaine therapy, and 30% (n=734) for thrombolytic therapy to 19% (n=447) for beta-blocker therapy. Seventy-two percent of patients eligible to receive a thrombolytic agent received this therapy; 53% received beta-blockers; 81% received aspirin; and 88% received lidocaine. Among patients ineligible for lidocaine therapy (n=1503), 20% received this agent. Use of study drugs was lower among eligible elderly patients, especially those older than 74 years (thrombolytic agent: odds ratio, 0.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.1 to 0.4; aspirin: odds ratio, 0.4, 95% confidence interval, 0.3 to 0.6; beta-blocker: odds ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.8). Female gender was associated with lower levels of aspirin use among eligible patients (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.6 to 0.9); and there was a trend toward lower levels of beta-blocker and thrombolytic use among eligible women.
Use of lifesaving therapies for eligible patients with AMI is higher than previously reported, particularly for aspirin and thrombolytic use in nonelderly patients. Lidocaine is still used inappropriately in a substantial proportion of patients with AMI. Increased adherence to AMI treatment guidelines is required for elderly patients and women.
美国心脏病学会和美国心脏协会已发布并传播了急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者治疗的循证指南。很少有研究调查符合条件人群对这些指南的遵循率,以及年龄和性别对社区医院环境中高效AMI治疗的影响。
回顾了1992年10月至1993年7月间入住明尼苏达州37家医院的2409例因AMI、疑似AMI或排除AMI入院且符合提示AMI的心电图、实验室和临床标准的患者的病历,以确定接受溶栓、β受体阻滞剂、阿司匹林和盐酸利多卡因治疗的符合条件患者的比例。使用逻辑回归模型估计患者年龄、性别和医院教学状况对这些治疗使用情况的影响。
治疗 eligibility 范围从阿司匹林治疗的68%(n = 1,627)、利多卡因治疗的38%(n = 906)、溶栓治疗的30%(n = 734)到β受体阻滞剂治疗的19%(n = 447)。 eligible 接受溶栓剂治疗的患者中有72%接受了该治疗;53%接受了β受体阻滞剂;81%接受了阿司匹林;88%接受了利多卡因。在不符合利多卡因治疗条件的患者(n = 1,503)中,20%接受了该药物。 eligible 老年患者中研究药物的使用较低,尤其是74岁以上的患者(溶栓剂:优势比,0.2;95%置信区间,0.1至0.4;阿司匹林:优势比,0.4,95%置信区间,0.3至