| 1. |
- Baron, Tomasz, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact on Long-Term Mortality of Presence of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease and Classification of Myocardial Infarction
- 2016
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Medicine. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-9343 .- 1555-7162. ; 129:4, s. 398-406
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In contrast to the associated-with-thromboembolic-event type 1 myocardial infarction, type 2 myocardial infarction is caused by acute imbalance between oxygen supply and demand of myocardium. Type 2 myocardial infarction may be present in patients with or without obstructive coronary artery disease, but knowledge about patient characteristics, treatments, and outcome in relation to coronary artery status is lacking. We aimed to compare background characteristics, triggering mechanisms, treatment, and long-term prognosis in a large real-life cohort of patients with type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction with and without obstructive coronary artery disease.METHODS: All 41,817 consecutive patients with type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction registered in the Swedish myocardial infarction registry (SWEDEHEART) who underwent coronary angiography between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013, with the last follow-up on December 31, 2014, were studied.RESULTS: In 92.8% of 40,501 patients classified as type 1 and in 52.5% of patients classified as type 2 myocardial infarction, presence of an obstructive coronary artery disease could be shown. Within the patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, those with type 2 myocardial infarction were older, and had more comorbidities and smaller necrosis as compared with type 1 myocardial infarction. In contrast, there was almost no difference in risk profile and extent of myocardial infarction between type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction patients with nonobstructive coronary artery stenosis. The crude long-term mortality was higher in type 2 as compared with type 1 myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease (hazard ratio [HR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-2.03), but was lower after adjustment (HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94). In myocardial infarction patients with nonobstructive coronary artery stenosis, the mortality risk was similar regardless of the clinical myocardial infarction type (crude HR 1.14; 95% CI, 0.84-1.55; adjusted HR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52-1.29).CONCLUSIONS: The substantial differences in risk factors, treatment, and outcome in patients with type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease supports the relevance of the division between type 1 and type 2 in this population. On the contrary, in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery stenosis, irrespective of the clinical type, a similar risk profile, extent of necrosis, and longterm prognosis were observed, indicating that distinction between type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction in these patients seems to be inappropriate.
|
|
| 3. |
- Erhardt, Leif RW
(författare)
-
Barriers to effective implementation of guideline recommendations.
- 2005
-
Ingår i: The American journal of medicine. - : Elsevier BV. - 1555-7162 .- 0002-9343. ; 118 Suppl 12A:12, Suppl 1, s. 36-41
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide, and its prevention and treatment are important healthcare aims. Hypercholesterolemia is among the most important modifiable Rick factors for CVD, and numerous guidelines exist for the treatment of this condition. Nevertheless, despite the existence of well-established and safe pharmacologic therapy for lowering cholesterol and preventing CVD, surveys in the United States and Europe have revealed that many patients have elevated cholesterol levels. There is a clear gap between what is known about treating CVD and the implementation of that knowledge. A survey assessing patients' knowledge about CVD observed that many patients are unaware of the disease prevalence and have little knowledge about the main risk factors, including the importance of cholesterol. Another survey demonstrated that many physicians overestimate patients' awareness of CVD and that physicians also overestimate the extent to which guidelines are implemented in clinical practice. Guideline implementation may be improved by narrowing the discrepancies between what patients and physicians believe and the reality. Many physicians claim that lack of time hinders guideline implementation and improvement of patient education. Physicians also appear to lack the motivation to implement lipid-lowering interventions. A multifactorial approach to improving use of guidelines in clinical practice may improve the treatment and prevention of CVD.
|
|
