Treatment gaps, 1-year readmission and mortality following myocardial infarction by diabetes status, sex and socioeconomic disadvantage

J. Morton, J. Ilomäki, S. Wood, J. Bell, Q. Huynh, D. Magliano, J. Shaw
{"title":"Treatment gaps, 1-year readmission and mortality following myocardial infarction by diabetes status, sex and socioeconomic disadvantage","authors":"J. Morton, J. Ilomäki, S. Wood, J. Bell, Q. Huynh, D. Magliano, J. Shaw","doi":"10.1136/jech-2021-218042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims We evaluated variation in treatment for, and outcomes following, myocardial infarction (MI) by diabetes status, sex and socioeconomic disadvantage. Methods We included all people aged ≥30 years who were discharged alive from hospital following MI between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2017 in Victoria, Australia (n=43 272). We assessed receipt of inpatient procedures and discharge dispensing of cardioprotective medications for each admission, as well as 1-year all-cause, cardiovascular, and MI readmission rates and 1-year all-cause mortality. Results Risk of all-cause (HR: 1.22 (1.19–1.26)), cardiovascular (1.29 (1.25–1.34)), MI (1.52 (1.43–1.62)) and heart failure readmission (1.62 (1.50–1.75)) and mortality (1.18 (1.11–1.26)) were higher in people with diabetes. Males and people in more disadvantaged areas were at increased risk of readmission and mortality following MI. People with diabetes (vs without) were more likely to receive coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) but less likely to receive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during, or within 30 days of, their index admission. Females were less likely to receive either (eg, 87% of males with a STEMI received PCI or CABG vs 70% of females), and people in more disadvantaged areas were less likely to receive PCI. People with diabetes, males and people in more disadvantaged areas were more likely to be dispensed cardioprotective medications at or within 90 days of discharge. Conclusions Following an MI, people with diabetes and males had poorer outcomes but received more intensive cardiovascular treatments. However, socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with both less intensive inpatient treatment and poorer outcomes.","PeriodicalId":15778,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2021-218042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Aims We evaluated variation in treatment for, and outcomes following, myocardial infarction (MI) by diabetes status, sex and socioeconomic disadvantage. Methods We included all people aged ≥30 years who were discharged alive from hospital following MI between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2017 in Victoria, Australia (n=43 272). We assessed receipt of inpatient procedures and discharge dispensing of cardioprotective medications for each admission, as well as 1-year all-cause, cardiovascular, and MI readmission rates and 1-year all-cause mortality. Results Risk of all-cause (HR: 1.22 (1.19–1.26)), cardiovascular (1.29 (1.25–1.34)), MI (1.52 (1.43–1.62)) and heart failure readmission (1.62 (1.50–1.75)) and mortality (1.18 (1.11–1.26)) were higher in people with diabetes. Males and people in more disadvantaged areas were at increased risk of readmission and mortality following MI. People with diabetes (vs without) were more likely to receive coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) but less likely to receive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during, or within 30 days of, their index admission. Females were less likely to receive either (eg, 87% of males with a STEMI received PCI or CABG vs 70% of females), and people in more disadvantaged areas were less likely to receive PCI. People with diabetes, males and people in more disadvantaged areas were more likely to be dispensed cardioprotective medications at or within 90 days of discharge. Conclusions Following an MI, people with diabetes and males had poorer outcomes but received more intensive cardiovascular treatments. However, socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with both less intensive inpatient treatment and poorer outcomes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与糖尿病状况、性别和社会经济劣势相关的治疗缺口、心肌梗死后1年再入院率和死亡率
目的:我们评估糖尿病状况、性别和社会经济劣势对心肌梗死(MI)治疗和预后的影响。方法我们纳入了2012年7月1日至2017年6月30日期间在澳大利亚维多利亚州因心肌梗死而活着出院的所有年龄≥30岁的患者(n=43 272)。我们评估了每次住院患者的住院手续和出院时心脏保护药物的分配情况,以及1年全因、心血管和心肌梗死再入院率和1年全因死亡率。结果糖尿病患者的全因风险(HR: 1.22(1.19-1.26))、心血管风险(HR: 1.29(1.25-1.34))、心肌梗死风险(HR: 1.52(1.43-1.62))、心力衰竭再入院风险(HR: 1.62(1.50-1.75))和死亡率(HR: 1.18(1.11-1.26))较高。男性和更贫困地区的人在心肌梗死后再入院和死亡的风险增加。糖尿病患者(与非糖尿病患者相比)更有可能接受冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG),但在入院期间或入院后30天内接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的可能性更低。女性接受这两种治疗的可能性都较低(例如,87%的STEMI男性接受PCI或CABG治疗,而女性为70%),更弱势地区的人接受PCI治疗的可能性也较低。糖尿病患者、男性和生活在更不利地区的人更有可能在出院后90天或90天内获得心脏保护药物。结论:心肌梗死后,糖尿病患者和男性的预后较差,但接受了更强化的心血管治疗。然而,社会经济劣势与住院治疗强度较低和预后较差有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Early adulthood socioeconomic trajectories contribute to inequalities in adult diet quality, independent of childhood and adulthood socioeconomic position Education-related inequalities in disability during the last years of life: a full population register-based study Impact of increasing workforce racial diversity on black-white disparities in cardiovascular disease mortality Gender-specific aspects of socialisation and risk of cardiovascular disease among community-dwelling older adults: a prospective cohort study using machine learning algorithms and a conventional method Poverty trajectories and child and mother well-being outcomes in Ireland: findings from an Irish prospective cohort
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1