Why the study?
The study aimed to determine the association between the DANCAMI and restricted DANCAMI (rDANCAMI) scores and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with AMI.
Does a higher DANCAMI score predict worse clinical outcomes and lower rates of invasive management in patients hospitalized with AMI?
Does a higher DANCAMI score predict worse clinical outcomes and lower rates of invasive management in patients hospitalized with AMI?
Higher DANCAMI comorbidity scores in AMI patients strongly predict increased in-hospital mortality and bleeding, while correlating with significantly lower utilization of invasive coronary procedures.
This study aimed to determine the association between the Danish Co-morbidity Index for Acute Myocardial Infarction (DANCAMI) and restricted DANCAMI (rDANCAMI) scores and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with AMI. Using the National Inpatient Sample, all AMI hospitalizations were stratified into four groups based on their DANCAMI and rDANCAMI score (0; 1 to 3; 4 to 5; ≥6). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, whereas secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events, major bleeding, ischemic stroke, and receipt of coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Patients with DANCAMI risk score ≥6 were more likely to suffer mortality (aOR 2.30, 95% CI 2.24 to 2.37) and bleeding (aOR 5.85, 95% CI 5.52 to 6.21) and were less likely to receive coronary angiography (aOR 0.34, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.34) and percutaneous coronary intervention (aOR 0.29, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.29) compared with patients with DANCAMI score of 0. Similar results were observed for the rDANCAMI score. In conclusion, increased DANCAMI and rDANCAMI scores were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes in patients with AMI and lower odds of invasive management. The use of co-morbidity scores identifies patients at high risk of adverse outcomes and highlights disparities in care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sokhal et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: