Racial disparity in long-term mortality rate after hospitalization for myocardial infarction: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study

26Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: The underlying reasons why African American patients have a significantly higher mortality rate than European American patients after a myocardial infarction (MI) remain unclear. This study examined the racial disparity in mortality rates after MI and possible explanatory factors. Methods: A prospective analysis was conducted within the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, a community-based study of 15,792 middle-aged adults. From 1987 to 1998, 642 patients (471 European American and 171 African American) hospitalized for MI without prior history of MI were identified. Of these 642 patients, 129 (82 European American and 47 African American) died during follow-up. Results: Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze the racial difference in mortality rate after MI. After adjusting for age and sex, the relative hazard (RH) comparing African American patients to European American patients was 1.80 (95% CI, 1.24-2.61). The RH decreased after adjusting for vascular risk factors (1.29; 95% CI, 0.83-2.00), socioeconomic position (1.31; 95% CI, 0.83-2.09), severity of MI (1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.45), and treatment (1.36; 95% CI, 0.92-2.00). In the final model, which included all factors aforementioned, the RH for race was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.56-1.77). Conclusions: Our findings suggested that vascular risk factors, socioeconomic position, and treatment play major roles in the racial disparity in mortality rate after MI.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ding, J., Roux, A. V. D., Nieto, F. J., McNamara, R. L., Hetmanski, J. B., Taylor, H. A., & Tyroler, H. A. (2003). Racial disparity in long-term mortality rate after hospitalization for myocardial infarction: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. American Heart Journal, 146(3), 459–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8703(03)00228-X

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free