Long-Term Trend in the Incidence of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Korea: 1997-2007

Abstract

Background and ObjectivesInformation about disease incidence is indispensable for the active prevention and control of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The purpose of this study was to provide basic information for the establishment of policy related to AMI by examining the long-term trends in incidence of AMI.Subjects and MethodsThis study identified the trend in disease incidence during between 1997 and 2007 using the Korean National Health Insurance Database that includes AMI {the 10th International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) code: I21, I22, I23, I250, I251} as a primary or secondary disease.ResultsThe attack and incidence rates for AMI in 2007 were 118.4 and 91.8 per 100,000 persons, respectively, and the rates more than doubled for the 11 years. Both rates were higher among males than females and increased more in the older age groups. Incidence cases accounted for most of the total attack cases every year; however, in recent years the proportion of relapse cases was on the rise. The case fatality rate was highest (14.5%) in 2000, and declined rapidly to 9.8% in 2007. The case fatality rate was higher among females than males and the older age groups; in particular, female patients ≥65 years of age had the highest fatality rate.ConclusionThis study showed that AMI has been on the rise in Korea for 11 years. Therefore, the establishment of policy for intensive control of the incidence of AMI is necessary by building a continuous monitoring and surveillance system.

Age-Specific Trends in the Incidence and In-Hospital Mortality of Acute Myocardial Infarction Over 30 Years in Japan — Report From the Miyagi AMI Registry Study —

“…4-8, 11 The same trend in reduced in-hospital mortality of AMI was also noted in Korea and Taiwan between late1990 s and 2000 s ( Table 2). 12, 13 Similarly, in Japan, we also previously reported that in-hospital mortality of AMI markedly decreased between 1980 and 2008. 19 of the improvement in the critical care of AMI, including shorter elapsed time from onset to admission and increasing performance rate of primary PCI, and the increasing prevalence of heart failure with Killip class ≥2 on admission, remain to be fully elucidated.…”

“…9-11 In contrast, in Asian countries, including Japan, Taiwan and Korea, AMI has become more common because of prolonged life expectancy, rapid socioeconomic advances, and westernization of life style and diet. 12, 13 In Japan, there have been a few registry studies of AMI and most of them included a relatively small number of patients and/or a relatively short study period. 14- 17 In order to elucidate the accurate trend of AMI in Japan, we have been conducting the Miyagi AMI Registry Study for 37 Age-Specific Trends in AMI in Japan (STEMI) vs. non-STEMI] was unavailable for most of the study period.…”

“…9, 10 In contrast, in Asian countries, together with westernization of diet and lifestyle and societal aging, increasing trends in the age-adjusted incidence of AMI have been reported in Taiwan (from 1999 to 2008) 12 and Korea (from 1997 to 2007). 13 However, the latest study in Korea found that the age-adjusted incidence of AMI turned to decline between 2006 and 2010, 27 which could be caused, at least in part, by preventive care programs and projects for chronic illnesses and cardio-cerebrovascular diseases towards the 2000 s in Korea. 28 We previously reported that the age-adjusted incidence of AMI increased approximately 4-fold between 1979 and 2008 in Japan.…”

Treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the sub-arctic region of Norway. Do we offer an equal quality of care?

“…Appropriate interventions may decrease the disability and death rates due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) [1–4]. Several countries have added AMI to the list of targets to be monitored and assessed at the national level [1–4].…”

“…Several countries have added AMI to the list of targets to be monitored and assessed at the national level [1–4]. In this monitoring, hospital performance has been compared based on quality of care measures [5–9].…”