Healthcare disparities for women hospitalized with myocardial infarction and angina.

IF 1.6 Q3 MANAGEMENT Team Performance Management Pub Date : 2020-04-01 DOI:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcz040
Alice M Jackson, Ruiqi Zhang, Iain Findlay, Keith Robertson, Mitchell Lindsay, Tamsin Morris, Brian Forbes, Richard Papworth, Alex McConnachie, Kenneth Mangion, Pardeep S Jhund, Colin McCowan, Colin Berry
{"title":"Healthcare disparities for women hospitalized with myocardial infarction and angina.","authors":"Alice M Jackson, Ruiqi Zhang, Iain Findlay, Keith Robertson, Mitchell Lindsay, Tamsin Morris, Brian Forbes, Richard Papworth, Alex McConnachie, Kenneth Mangion, Pardeep S Jhund, Colin McCowan, Colin Berry","doi":"10.1093/ehjqcco/qcz040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Ischaemic heart disease persists as the leading cause of death in both men and women in most countries and sex disparities, defined as differences in health outcomes and their determinants, may be relevant. We examined sex disparities in presenting characteristics, treatment and all-cause mortality in patients hospitalized with myocardial infarction (MI) or angina.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>We conducted a cohort study of all patients admitted with MI or angina (01 October 2013 to 30 June 2016) from a secondary care acute coronary syndrome e-Registry in NHS Scotland linked with national registers of community drug dispensation and mortality data. A total of 7878 patients hospitalized for MI or angina were prospectively included; 3161 (40%) were women. Women were older, more deprived, had a greater burden of comorbidity, were more often treated with guideline-recommended therapy preadmission and less frequently received immediate invasive management. Men were more likely to receive coronary angiography [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.52, confidence interval (CI) 1.37-1.68] and percutaneous coronary intervention (adjusted OR 1.68, CI 1.52-1.86). Women were less comprehensively treated with evidence-based therapies post-MI. Women had worse crude survival, primarily those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (14.3% vs. 8.0% at 1 year, P < 0.001), but this finding was explained by differences in baseline factors. Men with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction had a higher risk of all-cause death at 30 days [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.72, CI 1.16-2.56] and 1 year (adjusted HR 1.38, CI 1.12-1.69).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After taking account of baseline risk factors, sex differences in treatment pathway, use of invasive management, and secondary prevention therapies indicate disparities in guideline-directed management of women hospitalized with MI or angina.</p>","PeriodicalId":46084,"journal":{"name":"Team Performance Management","volume":"12 1","pages":"156-165"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7132925/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Team Performance Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcz040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Ischaemic heart disease persists as the leading cause of death in both men and women in most countries and sex disparities, defined as differences in health outcomes and their determinants, may be relevant. We examined sex disparities in presenting characteristics, treatment and all-cause mortality in patients hospitalized with myocardial infarction (MI) or angina.

Methods and results: We conducted a cohort study of all patients admitted with MI or angina (01 October 2013 to 30 June 2016) from a secondary care acute coronary syndrome e-Registry in NHS Scotland linked with national registers of community drug dispensation and mortality data. A total of 7878 patients hospitalized for MI or angina were prospectively included; 3161 (40%) were women. Women were older, more deprived, had a greater burden of comorbidity, were more often treated with guideline-recommended therapy preadmission and less frequently received immediate invasive management. Men were more likely to receive coronary angiography [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.52, confidence interval (CI) 1.37-1.68] and percutaneous coronary intervention (adjusted OR 1.68, CI 1.52-1.86). Women were less comprehensively treated with evidence-based therapies post-MI. Women had worse crude survival, primarily those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (14.3% vs. 8.0% at 1 year, P < 0.001), but this finding was explained by differences in baseline factors. Men with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction had a higher risk of all-cause death at 30 days [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.72, CI 1.16-2.56] and 1 year (adjusted HR 1.38, CI 1.12-1.69).

Conclusion: After taking account of baseline risk factors, sex differences in treatment pathway, use of invasive management, and secondary prevention therapies indicate disparities in guideline-directed management of women hospitalized with MI or angina.

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
因心肌梗塞和心绞痛住院的妇女在医疗保健方面的差异。
目的:在大多数国家,缺血性心脏病一直是导致男性和女性死亡的主要原因,性别差异(定义为健康结果及其决定因素的差异)可能与此有关。我们研究了心肌梗死(MI)或心绞痛住院患者在发病特征、治疗和全因死亡率方面的性别差异:我们对苏格兰国家医疗服务系统(NHS)的二级医疗急性冠脉综合征电子登记簿中所有因心肌梗死或心绞痛入院的患者(2013 年 10 月 1 日至 2016 年 6 月 30 日)进行了一项队列研究,该登记簿与全国社区药物分配登记簿和死亡率数据相链接。共有 7878 名因心肌梗死或心绞痛住院的患者被纳入前瞻性研究,其中 3161 人(40%)为女性。女性年龄更大、更贫困、合并症更多,更常在入院前接受指南推荐的治疗,较少立即接受侵入性治疗。男性更有可能接受冠状动脉造影术[调整后比值比(OR)1.52,置信区间(CI)1.37-1.68]和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(调整后比值比(OR)1.68,置信区间(CI)1.52-1.86)。女性在心肌梗死后接受循证疗法的综合治疗较少。女性的粗略存活率较低,主要是那些 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者(1 年后为 14.3% 对 8.0%,P在考虑了基线风险因素后,治疗路径、有创管理和二级预防疗法使用方面的性别差异表明,在对因心肌梗死或心绞痛住院的女性进行指导性管理方面存在差异。
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
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
29.40%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: This international journal contributes to the successful implementation and development of work teams and team-based organizations by providing a forum for sharing experience and learning to stimulate thought and transfer of ideas. It seeks to bridge the gap between research and practice by publishing articles where the claims are evidence-based and the conclusions have practical value. Effective teams form the heart of every successful organization. But team management is one of the hardest challenges faced by managers.
期刊最新文献
“They don’t take notes!” Tensions perceived by first-line workers in an action research project Digital team coaching for workplace communication: longitudinal evaluation of recipients’ perceptions How leader humility influences team reflexivity: a team level analysis The double-edged sword effect of psychological safety climate: a theoretical framework A comparative multi criteria decision analysis of football teams: evidence on FIFA world cup
×
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