Cargando…

Treatment and Prognosis of Myocardial Infarction Outside Cardiology Departments

Aim: Our aim was to investigate the characteristics, treatment and prognosis of patients with myocardial infarction (MI) treated outside a cardiology department (CD), compared with MI patients treated at a CD. Methods: A cohort of 1310 patients diagnosed with MI at eight Swedish hospitals in 2011 we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gard, Anton, Lindahl, Bertil, Hadziosmanovic, Nermin, Baron, Tomasz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7795967/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33396830
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010106
_version_ 1783634569794158592
author Gard, Anton
Lindahl, Bertil
Hadziosmanovic, Nermin
Baron, Tomasz
author_facet Gard, Anton
Lindahl, Bertil
Hadziosmanovic, Nermin
Baron, Tomasz
author_sort Gard, Anton
collection PubMed
description Aim: Our aim was to investigate the characteristics, treatment and prognosis of patients with myocardial infarction (MI) treated outside a cardiology department (CD), compared with MI patients treated at a CD. Methods: A cohort of 1310 patients diagnosed with MI at eight Swedish hospitals in 2011 were included in this observational study. Patients were followed regarding all-cause mortality until 2018. Results: A total of 235 patients, exclusively treated outside CDs, were identified. These patients had more non-cardiac comorbidities, were older (mean age 83.7 vs. 73.1 years) and had less often type 1 MIs (33.2% vs. 74.2%), in comparison with the CD patients. Advanced age and an absence of chest pain were the strongest predictors of non-CD care. Only 3.8% of non-CD patients were investigated with coronary angiography and they were also prescribed secondary preventive pharmacological treatments to a lesser degree, with only 32.3% having statin therapy at discharge. The all-cause mortality was higher in non-CD patients, also after adjustment for baseline parameters, both at 30 days (hazard ratio (HR) 2.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.62–3.22), one year (HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.39–2.36) and five years (HR 1.62; 95% CI 1.32–1.98). Conclusions: MI treatment outside CDs is associated with an adverse short- and long-term prognosis. An improved use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and secondary preventive pharmacological treatment might improve the long-term prognosis in these patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7795967
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77959672021-01-10 Treatment and Prognosis of Myocardial Infarction Outside Cardiology Departments Gard, Anton Lindahl, Bertil Hadziosmanovic, Nermin Baron, Tomasz J Clin Med Article Aim: Our aim was to investigate the characteristics, treatment and prognosis of patients with myocardial infarction (MI) treated outside a cardiology department (CD), compared with MI patients treated at a CD. Methods: A cohort of 1310 patients diagnosed with MI at eight Swedish hospitals in 2011 were included in this observational study. Patients were followed regarding all-cause mortality until 2018. Results: A total of 235 patients, exclusively treated outside CDs, were identified. These patients had more non-cardiac comorbidities, were older (mean age 83.7 vs. 73.1 years) and had less often type 1 MIs (33.2% vs. 74.2%), in comparison with the CD patients. Advanced age and an absence of chest pain were the strongest predictors of non-CD care. Only 3.8% of non-CD patients were investigated with coronary angiography and they were also prescribed secondary preventive pharmacological treatments to a lesser degree, with only 32.3% having statin therapy at discharge. The all-cause mortality was higher in non-CD patients, also after adjustment for baseline parameters, both at 30 days (hazard ratio (HR) 2.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.62–3.22), one year (HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.39–2.36) and five years (HR 1.62; 95% CI 1.32–1.98). Conclusions: MI treatment outside CDs is associated with an adverse short- and long-term prognosis. An improved use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and secondary preventive pharmacological treatment might improve the long-term prognosis in these patients. MDPI 2020-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7795967/ /pubmed/33396830 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010106 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Gard, Anton
Lindahl, Bertil
Hadziosmanovic, Nermin
Baron, Tomasz
Treatment and Prognosis of Myocardial Infarction Outside Cardiology Departments
title Treatment and Prognosis of Myocardial Infarction Outside Cardiology Departments
title_full Treatment and Prognosis of Myocardial Infarction Outside Cardiology Departments
title_fullStr Treatment and Prognosis of Myocardial Infarction Outside Cardiology Departments
title_full_unstemmed Treatment and Prognosis of Myocardial Infarction Outside Cardiology Departments
title_short Treatment and Prognosis of Myocardial Infarction Outside Cardiology Departments
title_sort treatment and prognosis of myocardial infarction outside cardiology departments
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7795967/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33396830
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010106
work_keys_str_mv AT gardanton treatmentandprognosisofmyocardialinfarctionoutsidecardiologydepartments
AT lindahlbertil treatmentandprognosisofmyocardialinfarctionoutsidecardiologydepartments
AT hadziosmanovicnermin treatmentandprognosisofmyocardialinfarctionoutsidecardiologydepartments
AT barontomasz treatmentandprognosisofmyocardialinfarctionoutsidecardiologydepartments