One-year health status outcomes of unstable angina versus myocardial infarction: a prospective, observational cohort study of ACS survivors

MOspace/Manakin Repository

Breadcrumbs Navigation

One-year health status outcomes of unstable angina versus myocardial infarction: a prospective, observational cohort study of ACS survivors

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2261-7-28

[+] show full item record


Title: One-year health status outcomes of unstable angina versus myocardial infarction: a prospective, observational cohort study of ACS survivors
Author: Maddox, Thomas M.; Reid, Kimberly J.; Rumsfeld, John S.; Spertus, John A.
Date: 2007-09-12
Citation: BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. 2007 Sep 12;7(1):28
Abstract: Abstract Background Unstable angina (UA) patients have lower mortality and reinfarction risks than ST-elevation (STEMI) or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients and, accordingly, receive less aggressive treatment. Little is known, however, about the health status outcomes (angina, physical function, and quality of life) of UA versus MI patients among survivors of an ACS hospitalization. Methods In a cohort of 1,192 consecutively enrolled ACS survivors from two Kansas City hospitals, we evaluated the associations between ACS presentation (UA, NSTEMI, and STEMI) and one-year health status (angina, physical functioning and quality of life), one-year cardiac rehospitalization rates, and two-year mortality outcomes, using multivariable regression modeling. Results After multivariable adjustment for demographic, hospital, co-morbidity, baseline health status, and treatment characteristics, UA patients had a greater prevalence of angina at 1 year than STEMI patients (adjusted relative risk [RR] = 1.42; 95% CI [1.06, 1.90]) and similar rates as NSTEMI patients (adjusted RR = 1.1; 95% CI [0.85, 1.42]). In addition, UA patients fared no better than MI patients in Short Form-12 physical component scores (UA vs. STEMI score difference -0.05 points; 95% CI [-2.41, 2.3]; UA vs. NSTEMI score difference -1.91 points; 95% CI [-4.01, 0.18]) or Seattle Angina Questionnaire quality of life scores (UA vs. STEMI score difference -1.39 points; 95% CI [-5.63, 2.85]; UA vs. NSTEMI score difference -0.24 points 95% CI [-4.01, 3.54]). Finally, UA patients had similar rehospitalization rates as MI patients (UA vs. STEMI adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.31; 95% CI [0.86, 1.99]; UA vs. NSTEMI adjusted HR = 1.03; 95% CI [0.73, 1.47]), despite better 2-year survival (UA vs. STEMI adjusted HR = 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.28, 0.95]; UA vs. NSTEMI adjusted HR = 0.40; 95% CI [0.24, 0.65]). Conclusion Although UA patients have better survival rates, they have similar or worse one-year health status outcomes and cardiac rehospitalization rates as compared with MI patients. Clinicians should be aware of the adverse health status outcome risks for UA patients and consider close monitoring for the opportunity to improve their health status and minimize the need for subsequent rehospitalization.
URI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2261-7-28
http://hdl.handle.net/10355/15042

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

[+] show full item record