基于病因的心源性休克院内幸存者预后比较:急性心肌梗死和非急性心肌梗死

IF 5.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Shih-Chieh Chien, Cheng-An Wang, Hung-Yi Liu, Chao-Feng Lin, Chun-Yao Huang, Li-Nien Chien
{"title":"基于病因的心源性休克院内幸存者预后比较:急性心肌梗死和非急性心肌梗死","authors":"Shih-Chieh Chien, Cheng-An Wang, Hung-Yi Liu, Chao-Feng Lin, Chun-Yao Huang, Li-Nien Chien","doi":"10.1186/s13613-024-01305-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current data on post-discharge mortality and rehospitalization is still insufficient among in-hospital survivors of cardiogenic shock (CS), including acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and non-AMI survivors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with CS who survived after hospital discharge were selected from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Each patient was followed up at 3-year intervals. Mortality and rehospitalization were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 16,582 eligible patients. Of these, 42.4% and 57.6% were AMI-CS and non-AMI-CS survivors, respectively. The overall mortality and rehospitalization rates were considerably high, with reports of 7.0% and 22.1% at 30 days, 24.5% and 58.2% at 1 year, and 38.9% and 73.0% at 3 years, respectively, among in-hospital CS survivors. Cardiovascular (CV) problems caused approximately 40% mortality and 60% rehospitalization. Overall, the non-AMI-CS group had a higher mortality burden than the AMI-CS group owing to older age and a higher prevalence of comorbidities. In multivariable models, the non-AMI-CS group exhibited a lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 0.78) and CV mortality (aHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.78) compared to the AMI-CS group. However, these risks diminished and even reversed after one year (aHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25 for all-cause mortality; aHR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.49 for CV mortality).This reversal was not observed in all-cause and CV rehospitalization. For rehospitalization, AMI-CS was associated with the risk of CV rehospitalization in the entire observation period (aHR:0.80, 95% CI:0.76-0.84).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In-hospital AMI-CS survivors had an increased risk of CV rehospitalization and 30-day mortality, whereas those with non-AMI-CS had a greater mortality risk after 1-year follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":7966,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Intensive Care","volume":"14 1","pages":"74"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11089020/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the prognosis among in-hospital survivors of cardiogenic shock based on etiology: AMI and Non-AMI.\",\"authors\":\"Shih-Chieh Chien, Cheng-An Wang, Hung-Yi Liu, Chao-Feng Lin, Chun-Yao Huang, Li-Nien Chien\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13613-024-01305-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current data on post-discharge mortality and rehospitalization is still insufficient among in-hospital survivors of cardiogenic shock (CS), including acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and non-AMI survivors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with CS who survived after hospital discharge were selected from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Each patient was followed up at 3-year intervals. Mortality and rehospitalization were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 16,582 eligible patients. Of these, 42.4% and 57.6% were AMI-CS and non-AMI-CS survivors, respectively. The overall mortality and rehospitalization rates were considerably high, with reports of 7.0% and 22.1% at 30 days, 24.5% and 58.2% at 1 year, and 38.9% and 73.0% at 3 years, respectively, among in-hospital CS survivors. Cardiovascular (CV) problems caused approximately 40% mortality and 60% rehospitalization. Overall, the non-AMI-CS group had a higher mortality burden than the AMI-CS group owing to older age and a higher prevalence of comorbidities. In multivariable models, the non-AMI-CS group exhibited a lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 0.78) and CV mortality (aHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.78) compared to the AMI-CS group. However, these risks diminished and even reversed after one year (aHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25 for all-cause mortality; aHR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.49 for CV mortality).This reversal was not observed in all-cause and CV rehospitalization. For rehospitalization, AMI-CS was associated with the risk of CV rehospitalization in the entire observation period (aHR:0.80, 95% CI:0.76-0.84).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In-hospital AMI-CS survivors had an increased risk of CV rehospitalization and 30-day mortality, whereas those with non-AMI-CS had a greater mortality risk after 1-year follow-up.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Intensive Care\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11089020/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01305-2\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01305-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前,有关心源性休克(CS)院内存活者(包括急性心肌梗死(AMI)和非AMI存活者)出院后死亡率和再住院率的数据仍然不足:方法:从台湾国民健康保险研究数据库中选取出院后存活的 CS 患者。每隔 3 年对每位患者进行随访。采用 Kaplan-Meier 曲线和 Cox 回归模型分析死亡率和再住院率:结果:共有 16,582 名符合条件的患者。结果:共有 16582 名符合条件的患者,其中 42.4% 和 57.6% 分别是 AMI-CS 和非 AMI-CS 幸存者。院内 CS 存活者的总死亡率和再住院率相当高,30 天内分别为 7.0% 和 22.1%,1 年内分别为 24.5% 和 58.2%,3 年内分别为 38.9% 和 73.0%。心血管(CV)问题导致约 40% 的死亡率和 60% 的再住院率。总体而言,非急性心肌梗死-CS组的死亡率高于急性心肌梗死-CS组,原因是年龄较大且合并症较多。在多变量模型中,与 AMI-CS 组相比,非 AMI-CS 组的全因死亡率(调整后危险比 [aHR] 0.69,95% 置信区间 [CI] 0.60 至 0.78)和 CV 死亡率(aHR 0.65,95% CI 0.54 至 0.78)风险较低。然而,这些风险在一年后降低甚至逆转(全因死亡率的 aHR 为 1.13,95% CI 为 1.03 至 1.25;心血管死亡率的 aHR 为 1.27,95% CI 为 1.09 至 1.49)。就再住院而言,在整个观察期内,AMI-CS与冠心病再住院风险相关(aHR:0.80,95% CI:0.76-0.84):结论:院内AMI-CS幸存者的心血管疾病再入院风险和30天死亡率增加,而非AMI-CS幸存者随访1年后的死亡率风险更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of the prognosis among in-hospital survivors of cardiogenic shock based on etiology: AMI and Non-AMI.

Comparison of the prognosis among in-hospital survivors of cardiogenic shock based on etiology: AMI and Non-AMI.

Background: Current data on post-discharge mortality and rehospitalization is still insufficient among in-hospital survivors of cardiogenic shock (CS), including acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and non-AMI survivors.

Methods: Patients with CS who survived after hospital discharge were selected from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Each patient was followed up at 3-year intervals. Mortality and rehospitalization were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models.

Results: There were 16,582 eligible patients. Of these, 42.4% and 57.6% were AMI-CS and non-AMI-CS survivors, respectively. The overall mortality and rehospitalization rates were considerably high, with reports of 7.0% and 22.1% at 30 days, 24.5% and 58.2% at 1 year, and 38.9% and 73.0% at 3 years, respectively, among in-hospital CS survivors. Cardiovascular (CV) problems caused approximately 40% mortality and 60% rehospitalization. Overall, the non-AMI-CS group had a higher mortality burden than the AMI-CS group owing to older age and a higher prevalence of comorbidities. In multivariable models, the non-AMI-CS group exhibited a lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 0.78) and CV mortality (aHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.78) compared to the AMI-CS group. However, these risks diminished and even reversed after one year (aHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25 for all-cause mortality; aHR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.49 for CV mortality).This reversal was not observed in all-cause and CV rehospitalization. For rehospitalization, AMI-CS was associated with the risk of CV rehospitalization in the entire observation period (aHR:0.80, 95% CI:0.76-0.84).

Conclusions: In-hospital AMI-CS survivors had an increased risk of CV rehospitalization and 30-day mortality, whereas those with non-AMI-CS had a greater mortality risk after 1-year follow-up.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Intensive Care
Annals of Intensive Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
107
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Intensive Care is an online peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality review articles and original research papers in the field of intensive care medicine. It targets critical care providers including attending physicians, fellows, residents, nurses, and physiotherapists, who aim to enhance their knowledge and provide optimal care for their patients. The journal's articles are included in various prestigious databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, OCLC, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded, SCOPUS, and Summon by Serial Solutions.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信