Key result
Lowest socioeconomic group in men linked to ~17% higher first AMI risk versus highest group.
Why the study?
Socioeconomic differences in incidence and survival after a first acute myocardial infarction in the Basque Country were not well characterized.
Does socioeconomic status affect the incidence and survival rates after a first acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=3,619)
Does socioeconomic status affect the incidence and survival rates after a first acute myocardial infarction?
Socioeconomic inequalities in the incidence and acute-phase survival of a first AMI are present in men but not in women in the Basque Country.
Socioeconomic disparities may elevate first AMI risk in men; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
To estimate the incidence and 28-day and 5-year survival rates after a first acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in relation to socioeconomic status in the Basque Country (Spain) between 1999 and 2000. Data from a population-based registry of AMI were used. The study included 3,619 patients to calculate age-standardized incidence by the direct method and 2,003 patients (out-of-hospital deaths were excluded) to calculate observed and relative survival using the Kaplan-Meier and Hakulinen methods, respectively. Socioeconomic status was quantified using a deprivation index ecologically assigned to each patient according to the census tract of residence at diagnosis of AMI and was categorized into quintiles. Among men, the risk of AMI was higher in the lowest socioeconomic group than in the highest socioeconomic group (RR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.02-1.34). In men, a higher risk of death was observed in the middle (Q3; HR = 1.60; 95%CI: 1.02-2.51) and low (Q5; HR = 1.65; 95%CI: 1.02-2.69) quintiles compared with the least deprived group for age-adjusted survival during the acute phase. In the fully adjusted model, this effect was attenuated and no significant differences were observed in long-term survival. Among women, no significant differences were observed either in incidence or in short- and long-term survival. Socioeconomic inequalities were only observed in men in incidence and in survival during the acute phase after an AMI. Estimar la incidencia y la supervivencia a 28 días y 5 años tras un primer infarto agudo de miocardio (IAM) según la posición socioeconómica en el País Vasco entre 1999 y 2000. Utilizando datos de un registro poblacional de IAM se incluyeron 3.619 pacientes para estimar la incidencia ajustada por edad por el método directo, y 2003 (excluidas las muertes extrahopitalarias) para la supervivencia observada y relativa con el método de Kaplan-Meier y el de Hakulinen, respectivamente. El nivel socioeconómico se definió por un índice de privación ecológicamente asignado a cada paciente según la sección censal de residencia al diagnóstico del IAM, y se categorizó en quintiles. Los hombres del nivel socioeconómico más bajo tuvieron un mayor riesgo de IAM que los del más alto (RR = 1,17; IC95%: 1,02-1,34). En la supervivencia en la fase aguda ajustada por edad, los hombres de los quintiles medio (Q3; HR = 1,60; IC95%: 1,02-2,51) y bajo (Q5; HR = 1,65; IC95%: 1,02-2,69) presentaron un mayor riesgo de muerte en comparación con el grupo más favorecido. Este efecto se vio atenuado en los modelos completamente ajustados, y no hubo diferencias significativas en la supervivencia a largo plazo. En la mujeres no se hallaron diferencias significativas en la incidencia ni en la supervivencia a corto y largo plazo. Sólo se han observado desigualdades socioeconómicas en los hombres en la incidencia y la supervivencia durante la fase aguda.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Machón et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in First acute myocardial infarction (n=3,619). Lowest socioeconomic status vs. Highest socioeconomic status was evaluated on Risk of acute myocardial infarction in men (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02-1.34). In men, the lowest socioeconomic group had a higher risk of a first acute myocardial infarction compared to the highest socioeconomic group (RR 1.17; 95% CI 1.02-1.34).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: