Key result
Single-living was an independent predictor of long-term all-cause mortality among employed patients with acute myocardial infarction (HR 2.55; 95% CI 1.52-4.30).
Why the study?
Does single-living increase the risk of long-term all-cause mortality in employed patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=242)
Does single-living increase the risk of long-term all-cause mortality in employed patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Effect estimate: HR 2.55 (95% CI 1.52-4.30)
Single-living is a strong independent prognostic determinant of long-term all-cause mortality (HR 2.55) in employed patients following an acute myocardial infarction.
Should not yet change post-MI management based on living status; extends social-determinant data but remains hypothesis-generating.
OBJECTIVE: There is conflicting evidence about the impact of social support on adverse outcome after acute myocardial infarction (MI). We examined the relation between single-living and long-term all-cause mortality after MI. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study of 242 employed patients with MI followed up to 16 years after MI. RESULTS: A total of 106 (43.8%) patients died during the follow-up. Single-living nearly doubled the risk of death; after adjusting for potential confounding factors, single-living was an independent predictor of death, with a hazard ratio of 2.55 (95% confidence interval: 1.52-4.30). Other predictors of death were diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, age, and ejection fraction less than 35%. CONCLUSION: Single-living is a prognostic determinant of long-term all-cause mortality after MI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nielsen (2010) conducted a cohort in acute myocardial infarction (n=242). Single-living was evaluated on long-term all-cause mortality (HR 2.55, 95% CI 1.52-4.30). Single-living was an independent predictor of long-term all-cause mortality among employed patients with acute myocardial infarction (HR 2.55; 95% CI 1.52-4.30).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: