4.5 Article

Twenty-year trends in incidence and 1-year mortality in Swedish patients hospitalised with non-AMI chest pain. Data from 1987-2006 from the Swedish hospital and death registries

期刊

HEART
卷 96, 期 13, 页码 1043-1049

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2010.193748

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council
  2. Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research
  3. Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To study trends for 20 years in incidence and 1-year mortality in hospitalised patients who received a diagnosis of either angina or unexplained chest pain (UCP) in Sweden. Design and setting Register study of all patients aged 25-84 years identified from the Swedish National Hospital Discharge Register who were hospitalised with a first-time diagnosis of UCP or angina pectoris during 1987 to 2006. Participants A total of 378 454 patients, 235 855 with UCP and 142 599 with angina. Main outcome measures 1-Year mortality and standardised mortality ratios (SMRs). Results From the period 1987-1991 to 2002-2006, the observed 1-year mortality rate in men and women with UCP aged 25-74 years decreased from 2.19% to 1.45% and from 1.85% to 0.91%, respectively. SMRs decreased from 1.67 (95% CI 1.39 to 1.95) and 1.63 (1.27 to 2.00) to 1.09 (0.96 to 1.23) and 0.88 (0.75 to 1.00). Corresponding decreases in 1-year mortality for a discharge diagnosis of angina were from 6.50% to 2.49% in men and from 4.80% to 1.68% in women, with SMRs decreasing from 2.69 (2.33-3.05) and 2.59 (2.06-3.12) to 1.09 (0.93-1.25) and 1.05 (0.81-1.29), respectively. Similar changes occurred in patients aged 75-84 years. Only men with UCP aged 75-84 years still retained a slightly increased mortality (SMR 1.14 (1.01-1.28)). Conclusions The prognosis of patients admitted with chest pain in which acute myocardial infarction has been ruled out has improved for the past 20 years, such that the 1-year mortality of these patients is now similar to that in the general population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据