Background-We aimed to study sex-related differences in temporal trends in short-and long-term mortality from 1985 to 2008 in patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction. Methods and Results-We included a total of 14 434 consecutive patients admitted to our intensive coronary care unit between 1985 and 2008 for myocardial infarction. A total of 4028 patients (28%) were women. Women were more likely to present with a higher risk profile and were equally likely to receive pharmacological and invasive reperfusion therapy compared with men. Women had a higher unadjusted mortality rate at 30 days (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.5) and during 20 years (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.2) of follow-up. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, 30-day mortality was equal (adjusted odds ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.2) but the hazard for 20-year mortality was lower (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.90) in women compared to men. For 30-day mortality, there was no significant interaction between sex and age, diagnosis, or diabetes mellitus. Survival improved between 1985 and 2008. Temporal mortality reductions between 1985 and 2008 were at least as high in women as in men with myocardial infarction for both 30-day mortality and long-term mortality hazard. Conclusions-The fact that adjusted mortality rates for men and women treated for myocardial infarction in an intensive coronary care unit were similar and declined markedly over a 24-year period suggests that both sexes benefit from the evidence-based therapies that have been developed and implemented during this time period.

myocardial infarction, prognosis, sex
dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.113811, hdl.handle.net/1765/65139
Circulation (Baltimore)
Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Nauta, S.T, Deckers, J.W, van Domburg, R.T, & Akkerhuis, K.M. (2012). Sex-related trends in mortality in hospitalized men and women after myocardial infarction between 1985 and 2008: Equal benefit for women and men. Circulation (Baltimore) (Vol. 126, pp. 2184–2189). doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.113811