Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorSen, Abhijit
dc.contributor.authorGemes, Katalin
dc.contributor.authorStålhammar, Gustav
dc.contributor.authorSvensén, Christer
dc.contributor.authorTornvall, Per
dc.contributor.authorJonsson, Magnus
dc.contributor.authorVarmdal, Torunn
dc.contributor.authorEndreseth, Birger Henning
dc.contributor.authorJanszky, Imre
dc.contributor.authorMøller, Jette
dc.date.accessioned2023-04-13T13:39:50Z
dc.date.available2023-04-13T13:39:50Z
dc.date.created2022-03-23T21:05:42Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationAnnals of Internal Medicine. 2022, 175 (5), 6-63.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0003-4819
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3062941
dc.description.abstractBackground: Preoperative cardiovascular evaluations are frequently done before ambulatory ophthalmologic procedures. However, whether these procedures can trigger an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is unknown. Objective: To assess the short-term risk for AMI associated with ophthalmologic procedures. Design: Case-crossover design. Setting: Population-based nationwide study from Norway and Sweden. Participants: First-time patients with AMI, aged 40 years and older, identified via inpatient registries and linked to outpatient surgical procedures in Norway (2008 to 2014) and Sweden (2001 to 2014), respectively. Measurements: Using self-matching, for each participant, exposure to ophthalmologic procedures in the 0 to 7 days before AMI diagnosis (hazard period) was compared with an 8-day period 30 days earlier, that is, days 29 to 36 before AMI (control period) to estimate the relative risk for an AMI the week after an ophthalmologic procedure. The odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated, using conditional logistic regression. Only patients who had a procedure of interest during either the hazard or control period were included. Results: For the 806 patients with AMI included in this study, there was a lower likelihood of AMI in the week after an ophthalmologic procedure than during the control week (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.91). Furthermore, there was no evidence of increased risk for AMI when analyses were stratified by surgery subtype, anesthesia (local or general), duration, invasiveness (low, intermediate, or high), patient's age (<65 years or ≥65 years), or comorbidity (none vs. any). Limitation: Potential bias from time-varying confounders between the hazard and the control periods. Conclusion: Ophthalmologic procedures done in an outpatient setting did not seem to be associated with an increased risk for AMI.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherAmerican College of Physiciansen_US
dc.titleRisk for Acute Myocardial Infarction After Ophthalmologic Proceduresen_US
dc.title.alternativeRisk for Acute Myocardial Infarction After Ophthalmologic Proceduresen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber6-63en_US
dc.source.volume175en_US
dc.source.journalAnnals of Internal Medicineen_US
dc.source.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.7326/M20-6618
dc.identifier.cristin2012131
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel