| 1. |
- Alabas, Oras A., et al.
(author)
-
Sex Differences in Treatments, Relative Survival, and Excess Mortality Following Acute Myocardial Infarction : National Cohort Study Using the SWEDEHEART Registry
- 2017
-
In: Journal of the American Heart Association. - : WILEY. - 2047-9980. ; 6:12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background - This study assessed sex differences in treatments, all-cause mortality, relative survival, and excess mortality following acute myocardial infarction.Methods and Results - A population-based cohort of all hospitals providing acute myocardial infarction care in Sweden (SWEDEHEART [Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies]) from 2003 to 2013 was included in the analysis. Excess mortality rate ratios (EMRRs), adjusted for clinical characteristics and guideline-indicated treatments after matching by age, sex, and year to background mortality data, were estimated. Although there were no sex differences in all-cause mortality adjusted for age, year of hospitalization, and comorbidities for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI at 1 year (mortality rate ratio: 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.96-1.05] and 0.97 [95% CI, 0.95-.99], respectively) and 5 years (mortality rate ratio: 1.03 [95% CI, 0.99-1.07] and 0.97 [95% CI, 0.95-.99], respectively), excess mortality was higher among women compared with men for STEMI and non-STEMI at 1 year (EMRR: 1.89 [95% CI, 1.66-2.16] and 1.20 [95% CI, 1.16-1.24], respectively) and 5 years (EMRR: 1.60 [95% CI, 1.48-1.72] and 1.26 [95% CI, 1.21-1.32], respectively). After further adjustment for the use of guideline-indicated treatments, excess mortality among women with non-STEMI was not significant at 1 year (EMRR: 1.01 [95% CI, 0.97-1.04]) and slightly higher at 5 years (EMRR: 1.07 [95% CI, 1.02-1.12]). For STEMI, adjustment for treatments attenuated the excess mortality for women at 1 year (EMRR: 1.43 [95% CI, 1.26-1.62]) and 5 years (EMRR: 1.31 [95% CI, 1.19-1.43]).Conclusions - Women with acute myocardial infarction did not have statistically different all-cause mortality, but had higher excess mortality compared with men that was attenuated after adjustment for the use of guideline-indicated treatments. This suggests that improved adherence to guideline recommendations for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction may reduce premature cardiovascular death among women.
|
|
| 2. |
- Alabas, Oras A., et al.
(author)
-
Statistics on mortality following acute myocardial infarction in 842 897 Europeans
- 2020
-
In: Cardiovascular Research. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 0008-6363 .- 1755-3245. ; 116:1, s. 149-157
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Aims: To compare ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) mortality between Sweden and the UK, adjusting for background population rates of expected death, case mix, and treatments.Methods and results: National data were collected from hospitals in Sweden [n = 73 hospitals, 180 368 patients, Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART)] and the UK [n = 247, 662 529 patients, Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP)] between 2003 and 2013. There were lower rates of revascularization [STEMI (43.8% vs. 74.9%); NSTEMI (27.5% vs. 43.6%)] and pharmacotherapies at time of hospital discharge including [aspirin (82.9% vs. 90.2%) and (79.9% vs. 88.0%), beta-blockers (73.4% vs. 86.4%) and (65.3% vs. 85.1%)] in the UK compared with Sweden, respectively. Standardized net probability of death (NPD) between admission and 1 month was higher in the UK for STEMI [8.0 (95% confidence interval 7.4-8.5) vs. 6.7 (6.5-6.9)] and NSTEMI [6.8 (6.4-7.2) vs. 4.9 (4.7-5.0)]. Between 6 months and 1 year and more than 1 year, NPD remained higher in the UK for NSTEMI [2.9 (2.5-3.3) vs. 2.3 (2.2-2.5)] and [21.4 (20.0-22.8) vs. 18.3 (17.6-19.0)], but was similar for STEMI [0.7 (0.4-1.0) vs. 0.9 (0.7-1.0)] and [8.4 (6.7-10.1) vs. 8.3 (7.5-9.1)].Conclusion: Short-term mortality following STEMI and NSTEMI was higher in the UK compared with Sweden. Mid- and longer-term mortality remained higher in the UK for NSTEMI but was similar for STEMI. Differences in mortality may be due to differential use of guideline-indicated treatments.
|
|
| 3. |
- Dondo, Tatendashe B., et al.
(author)
-
beta-Blockers and Mortality After Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients Without Heart Failure or Ventricular Dysfunction
- 2017
-
In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. - 0735-1097 .- 1558-3597. ; 69:22, s. 2710-2720
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: For acute myocardial infarction (AMI) without heart failure (HF), it is unclear if beta-blockers are associated with reduced mortality.OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine the association between beta-blocker use and mortality in patients with AMI without HF or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).METHODS: This cohort study used national English and Welsh registry data from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project. A total of 179,810 survivors of hospitalization with AMI without HF or LVSD, between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2013 (final follow-up: December 31, 2013), were assessed. Survival-time inverse probability weighting propensity scores and instrumental variable analyses were used to investigate the association between the use of beta-blockers and 1-year mortality.RESULTS: Of 91,895 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 87,915 patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 88,542 (96.4%) and 81,933 (93.2%) received beta-blockers, respectively. For the entire cohort, with> 163,772 person-years of observation, there were 9,373 deaths (5.2%). Unadjusted 1-year mortality was lower for patients who received beta-blockers compared with those who did not (4.9% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.001). However, after weighting and adjustment, there was no significant difference in mortality between those with and without beta-blocker use (average treatment effect [ATE] coefficient: 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.60 to 0.75; p = 0.827). Findings were similar for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coefficient: 0.30; 95% CI: -0.98 to 1.58; p = 0.637) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coefficient: -0.07; 95% CI: -0.68 to 0.54; p = 0.819).CONCLUSIONS: Among survivors of hospitalization with AMI who did not have HF or LVSD as recorded in the hospital, the use of beta-blockers was not associated with a lower risk of death at any time point up to 1 year.
|
|
| 4. |
- Faxén, Jonas, et al.
(author)
-
A user-friendly risk-score for predicting in-hospital cardiac arrest among patients admitted with suspected non ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome - The SAFER-score
- 2017
-
In: Resuscitation. - : Elsevier BV. - 0300-9572 .- 1873-1570. ; 121, s. 41-48
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- AIM: To develop a simple risk-score model for predicting in-hospital cardiac arrest (CA) among patients hospitalized with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).METHODS: Using the Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART), we identified patients (n=242 303) admitted with suspected NSTE-ACS between 2008 and 2014. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between 26 candidate variables and in-hospital CA. A risk-score model was developed and validated using a temporal cohort (n=126 073) comprising patients from SWEDEHEART between 2005 and 2007 and an external cohort (n=276 109) comprising patients from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) between 2008 and 2013.RESULTS: The incidence of in-hospital CA for NSTE-ACS and non-ACS was lower in the SWEDEHEART-derivation cohort than in MINAP (1.3% and 0.5% vs. 2.3% and 2.3%). A seven point, five variable risk score (age ≥60 years (1 point), ST-T abnormalities (2 points), Killip Class >1 (1 point), heart rate <50 or ≥100bpm (1 point), and systolic blood pressure <100mmHg (2 points) was developed. Model discrimination was good in the derivation cohort (c-statistic 0.72) and temporal validation cohort (c-statistic 0.74), and calibration was reasonable with a tendency towards overestimation of risk with a higher sum of score points. External validation showed moderate discrimination (c-statistic 0.65) and calibration showed a general underestimation of predicted risk.CONCLUSIONS: A simple points score containing five variables readily available on admission predicts in-hospital CA for patients with suspected NSTE-ACS.
|
|
| 5. |
- Simonsson, Moa, et al.
(author)
-
Development and Validation of a Novel Risk Score for In-Hospital Major Bleeding in Acute Myocardial Infarction : The SWEDEHEART Score
- 2019
-
In: Journal of the American Heart Association. - : WILEY. - 2047-9980. ; 8:5
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background – Bleeding risk stratification in acute coronary syndrome is of highest clinical interest but current risk scores have limitations. We sought to develop and validate a new in-hospital bleeding risk score for patients with acute myocardial infarction.Methods and Results – From the nationwide SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) register, 97,597 patients with acute myocardial infarction enrolled from 2009 until 2014 were selected. A full model with 23 predictor variables and 8 interaction terms was fitted using logistic regression. The full model was approximated by a model with 5 predictors and 1 interaction term. Calibration, discrimination, and clinical utility was evaluated and compared with the ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) and CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines) scores. Internal and temporal validity was assessed. In-hospital major bleeding, defined as fatal, intracranial, or requiring surgery or blood transfusion, occurred in 1356 patients (1.4%). The 5 predictors in the approximate model that constituted the SWEDEHEART score were hemoglobin, age, sex, creatinine, and Creactive protein. The ACTION and CRUSADE scores were poorly calibrated in the derivation cohort and therefore were recalibrated. The SWEDEHEART score showed higher discriminative ability than both recalibrated scores, overall (C-index 0.80 versus 0.73/0.72) and in all predefined subgroups. Decision curve analysis demonstrated consistently positive and higher net benefit for the SWEDEHEART score compared with both recalibrated scores across all clinically relevant decision thresholds. The original ACTION and CRUSADE scores showed negative net benefit.Conclusions – The 5-item SWEDEHEART score discriminates in-hospital major bleeding in patients with acute myocardial infarction and has superior model performance compared with the recalibrated ACTION and CRUSADE scores.
|
|
