4.5 Article

Low-dose aspirin and rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm

期刊

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY
卷 65, 期 3, 页码 616-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.04.061

关键词

-

资金

  1. 7th European Framework Program [200647]
  2. Department of Vascular Surgery, Viborg Regional Hospital, Viborg, Denmark
  3. Rosa and Asta Jensen's Foundation, Viborg, Denmark
  4. Research Foundation of Regional Hospital Central Jutland, Denmark
  5. Health Research Foundation of the Central Denmark Region

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The use of low-dose aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA]) has been suggested to attenuate growth of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), yet solid clinical evidence of this hypothesis is still missing. This study aimed to investigate whether preadmission ASA use influenced the risk of presenting with rupture of AAA (rAAA) on hospital admission and subsequent 30-day case fatality. Methods: There were 4010 patients with an incident diagnosis of rAAA and 4010 age-and sex-matched AAA patients identified in the Danish National Registry of Patients. Data on comorbidity, concomitant drug use, primary health care utilization, socioeconomic status, and vital status were obtained from nationwide health care and administrative registries. Results: Preadmission ASA use was identified for 1815 (45.3%) rAAA patients and 2111 (52.6%) AAA patients, corresponding to a crude odds ratio for rAAA in ASA users of 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.79) compared with nonusers. However, after adjustment for possible confounders, no association between ASA use and the risk of rAAA was found (adjusted odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.08). The aggregated 30-day rAAA case-fatality rate for users of ASA was 66.0% compared with 56.9% for nonusers, corresponding to an adjusted mortality rate ratio of 1.16 (95% CI, 1.06-1.27). Conclusions: Preadmission ASA use is not associated with an altered risk of AAA rupture but seems to be associated with a worse prognosis after rupture of AAA.

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