BACKGROUND: It has previously been shown that the increased use of therapeutic intervention may not reduce patient fatality if there is a simultaneous increase in case severity. The present study was designed to extend the relationship between case severity and therapeutic interventions to long-term survival in the same study population. OBJECTIVE: To compare five-year survival of patients discharged after acute myocardial infarction from 1984 to 1988 and from 1989 to 1993, and to evaluate possible reasons for survival differences. METHODS: The present study was population-based. Survival time was determined by record linkage into the Canadian Mortality Database. Association of five-year survival with patient characteristics, in-hospital treatment and discharge medications was assessed by logistical regression analysis. Case severity was calculated as the probability of death within five years, given the patient profile and excluding any interventions. RESULTS: Between the two study periods, most patient characteristics and treatment intensity changed, but case severity for the study population remained constant. Five-year survival improved from 74.8% to 79.2% (P(chi2)=0.001). The improvement was adequately described by the combination of changes in patient profile and treatment without residual period effect (P(goodness-of-fit)=0.752). The treatments significantly associated with five-year survival were coronary artery bypass graft surgery (OR 2.74; 95% CI 1.86 to 4.05), percutaneous coronary intervention (OR 2.63; 95% CI 1.67 to 4.14) and thrombolysis (OR 1.98; 95% CI 1.50 to 2.62) during admission, as well as acetylsalicylic acid (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.68) or beta-blocker (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92) prescription at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in patient profile did not affect long-term prognosis; instead, treatment modalities accounted for the observed improvement in five-year survival.
BACKGROUND: It has previously been shown that the increased use of therapeutic intervention may not reduce patient fatality if there is a simultaneous increase in case severity. The present study was designed to extend the relationship between case severity and therapeutic interventions to long-term survival in the same study population. OBJECTIVE: To compare five-year survival of patients discharged after acute myocardial infarction from 1984 to 1988 and from 1989 to 1993, and to evaluate possible reasons for survival differences. METHODS: The present study was population-based. Survival time was determined by record linkage into the Canadian Mortality Database. Association of five-year survival with patient characteristics, in-hospital treatment and discharge medications was assessed by logistical regression analysis. Case severity was calculated as the probability of death within five years, given the patient profile and excluding any interventions. RESULTS: Between the two study periods, most patient characteristics and treatment intensity changed, but case severity for the study population remained constant. Five-year survival improved from 74.8% to 79.2% (P(chi2)=0.001). The improvement was adequately described by the combination of changes in patient profile and treatment without residual period effect (P(goodness-of-fit)=0.752). The treatments significantly associated with five-year survival were coronary artery bypass graft surgery (OR 2.74; 95% CI 1.86 to 4.05), percutaneous coronary intervention (OR 2.63; 95% CI 1.67 to 4.14) and thrombolysis (OR 1.98; 95% CI 1.50 to 2.62) during admission, as well as acetylsalicylic acid (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.68) or beta-blocker (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92) prescription at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in patient profile did not affect long-term prognosis; instead, treatment modalities accounted for the observed improvement in five-year survival.
Authors: H Brønnum-Hansen; T Jørgensen; M Davidsen; M Madsen; M Osler; L U Gerdes; M Schroll Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Mandeep Singh; Guy S Reeder; Steven J Jacobsen; Susan Weston; Jill Killian; Véronique L Roger Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: S Capewell; B M Livingston; K MacIntyre; J W Chalmers; J Boyd; A Finlayson; A Redpath; J P Pell; C J Evans; J J McMurray Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Philippe Gabriel Steg; Robert J Goldberg; Joel M Gore; Keith A A Fox; Kim A Eagle; Marcus D Flather; Immad Sadiq; Rachel Kasper; Sophie K Rushton-Mellor; Frederick A Anderson Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Riley A Suhar; Vanessa M Doulames; Yueming Liu; Meghan E Hefferon; Oscar Figueroa; Hana Buabbas; Sarah C Heilshorn Journal: Biomater Sci Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 7.590
Authors: Maximilian Tscharre; Florian Egger; Matthias Machata; Miklos Rohla; Nadia Michael; Manuel Neumayr; Robert Zweiker; Johannes Hajos; Christopher Adlbrecht; Markus Suppan; Wolfgang Helmreich; Bernd Eber; Kurt Huber; Thomas W Weiss Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Philip Andrew Quinones; Inge Kirchberger; Margit Heier; Bernhard Kuch; Ines Trentinaglia; Andreas Mielck; Annette Peters; Wolfgang von Scheidt; Christa Meisinger Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: An Qi Duan; Mitchell C Lock; Sunthara Rajan Perumal; Jack R Darby; Jia Yin Soo; Joseph B Selvanayagam; Christopher K Macgowan; Mike Seed; Janna L Morrison Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-09-13 Impact factor: 5.364