In a cohort of 1133 patients with acute myocardial infarction, over 30% had no pre-existing coronary heart disease, and prior use of statins (2%) and antiplatelet agents (16%) was rare.
Observational (n=1,133)
Yes
A large proportion of patients presenting with AMI have no prior CHD diagnosis and very low rates of baseline preventive therapies like statins and antiplatelets, highlighting the need for improved primary prevention.
Aim. As a part of the LIS Study (Lyubertsy Study of mortality in patients after acute myocardial infarction), to assess the patients’ demographic characteristics, specifics of the clinical course and treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD) and other cardiovascular pathology, as well as the risk factor (RF) prevalence before acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Material and methods. The study included all patients (n=1133) who, within the three-year study period, developed AMI and were admitted to Lyubertsy clinics (Moscow Region). Results. The study population included 54,5 % men and 45,5 % women. Mean age of male and female AMI patients was, respectively, 60,1±0,5 and 71,4±0,4 yeas. Approximately 35 % of all participants were working-age men. The majority of the patients had several RFs, among which arterial hypertension (AH) was the most prevalent (76 %). Over 30 % of the patients did not have pre-existing CHD before AMI. Prior to AMI, pharmaceutical treatment was rare; antiplatelet agents and statins were administered to 16 % and 2 %, respectively. Conclusion: AMI often developed in people without pre-existing CHD, being, therefore, the first CHD manifestation. Cardiovascular risk assessment in people with RFs should be an important part of the everyday clinical practice.
Martsevich et al. (Tue,) conducted a observational in Acute myocardial infarction (n=1,133). In a cohort of 1133 patients with acute myocardial infarction, over 30% had no pre-existing coronary heart disease, and prior use of statins (2%) and antiplatelet agents (16%) was rare.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: