论文部分内容阅读
目的:了解我国三级医院非瓣膜性心房颤动（NVAF）住院患者中血栓栓塞风险评估的应用现状、变化趋势及影响因素。方法:本研究基于中国心血管疾病医疗质量改善项目，按照地区及经济发展水平分层，每层内选取约10%的三级医院，入选医院每月连续上报前10~20例出院诊断包含房颤的病例。2015年2月至2019年12月，全国30个省151家三级医院共上报49 104例NVAF病例。收集患者的临床资料，分析血栓栓塞风险评估在NVAF患者中的应用比例、不同医院之间的差异、变化趋势，以及影响血栓栓塞风险评估应用的相关因素。结果:NVAF患者的年龄为（68.7±12.1）岁，男性27 709例（56.4%），仅17 251例（35.1%）接受了血栓栓塞风险评估。不同医院接受血栓栓塞风险评估的NVAF患者比例最低为0，最高为100%。在上报NVAF病例数超过30例的141家三级医院中，18.4%（26/141）的医院所有患者未接受栓塞风险评估，21.3%（30/141）的医院有超过50%的患者接受了栓塞风险评估，仅有1家医院所有患者接受了栓塞风险评估。接受栓塞风险评估的患者比例由2015年第一季度的16.2%（220/1 362），上升至2019年第四季度的67.1%（1 054/1 572）（n P<0.001）。患者因素影响血栓栓塞风险评估的应用，男性低于女性，n OR值和95%n CI为0.94（0.89~0.99）；第一住院原因为急性冠脉综合征及其他心脏疾病的患者低于房颤患者，n OR值和95%n CI分别为0.59（0.55~0.63）、0.52（0.45~0.61）；阵发性、持续性、长期持续性/永久性房颤患者低于首次检出房颤患者，n OR值和95%n CI分别为0.62（0.57~0.67）、0.72（0.66~0.79）、0.57（0.52~0.64）；既往有高血压，心力衰竭，卒中/TIA史，及既往接受抗凝治疗的患者高于既往无以上情况者，n OR值和95%n CI分别为1.17（1.11~1.23）、1.18（1.07~1.30）、1.17（1.08~1.27）、1.28（1.19~1.37），差异均有统计学意义（n P均<0.05）。n 结论:我国三级医院住院的NVAF患者中血栓栓塞风险评估的应用比例较低且在不同医院之间存在较大差异。近年来我国三级医院血栓栓塞风险评估的应用比例有所提高，但仍有较大提升空间。患者特征影响血栓栓塞风险评估的应用。“,”Objective:To analyze the current status, trend and predictors of thromboembolism risk assessment in patients hospitalized with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in tertiary hospitals in China.Methods:The study was based on data from the Improving Care for Cardiovascular disease in China (CCC)-Atrial Fibrillation (AF) project. About 10% of the tertiary hospitals in each geographic-economic stratum were recruited. Participating hospitals reported the first 10 to 20 patients with a discharge diagnosis of atrial fibrillation monthly. From February 2015 to December 2019, a total of 49 104 NVAF patients from 151 tertiary hospitals in 30 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions were enrolled. Clinical data of the patients was collected. The proportion of NVAF patients receiving thromboembolism risk assessment, variations in the proportion between different hospitals, the time trend of the application of thromboembolism risk assessment, and the predictors of the application of thromboembolism risk assessment were analyzed.Results:The age of the NVAF patients was (68.7±12.1) years, 27 709 patients (56.4%) were male. Only 17 251 patients (35.1%) received thromboembolism risk assessment. The proportion varied substantially between hospitals with the lowest value of 0 and the highest value of 100%. Among the hospitals, which enrolled more than 30 patients, no patients received thromboembolism risk assessment in 18.4% (26/141) of the hospitals, more than 50% of the patients received thromboembolism risk assessment in 21.3% (30/141) of the hospitals, and all the patients received thromboembolism risk assessment in only 1 hospital. The proportion of NVAF patients receiving thromboembolism risk assessment was 16.2% (220/1 362) in the first quarter of 2015, and significantly increased to 67.1% (1 054/1 572) in the last quarter of 2019 (n P<0.001). Patients′ characteristics were associated with the application of thromboembolism risk assessment. The odds of receiving thromboembolism risk assessment was lower in male patients compared to female patients(n OR=0.94,95%n CI 0.89-0.99), lower in patients with acute coronary syndrome or other cardiovascular diseases compared to those with AF as the primary admission reason (n OR=0.59, 95%n CI 0.55-0.63, n OR=0.52, 95%n CI 0.45-0.61, respectively), and lower in patients with paroxysmal, persistent and long-standing/permanent AF compared to those with first detected AF (n OR=0.62, 95%n CI 0.57-0.67, n OR=0.72, 95%n CI 0.66-0.79, n OR=0.57, 95%n CI 0.52-0.64, respectively). The odds was higher in patients with a history of hypertension, heart failure, stroke/TIA, and previous anticoagulant therapy compared to those without the above conditions (n OR=1.17, 95%n CI 1.11-1.23, n OR=1.18, 95%n CI 1.07-1.30, n OR=1.17, 95%n CI 1.08-1.27, n OR=1.28, 95%n CI 1.19-1.37, respectively) (n Pall<0.05).n Conclusion:Thromboembolism risk assessment was underused in patients hospitalized with NVAF in tertiary hospitals in China, and there were substantial variations between hospitals in the application of thromboembolism risk assessment. The application of thromboembolism risk assessment in tertiary hospitals has been improved in recent years, but there is still plenty of room for future improvement. Patients′ characteristics could affect the application of thromboembolism risk assessment in China.