| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Circulation. 1997;95:1433-1440.)
© 1997 American Heart Association, Inc.
Articles |
From the Epidemiology Research Center, The University of Texas Houston Health Science Center, School of Public Health.
Correspondence to Milton Z. Nichaman, MD, ScD, Epidemiology Research Center, The University of Texas Houston Health Science Center School of Public Health, PO Box 20186, Houston, TX 77225. E-mail mzn{at}utsph.sph.uth.tmc.edu.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Methods and Results Data regarding myocardial infarction attacks and incident events were collected for a 4-year period in the Corpus Christi Heart Project, a population-based surveillance project for hospitalized coronary heart disease events. For both women and men, Mexican Americans experienced greater hospitalization rates for both attacks and incident events than non-Hispanic whites. Age-adjusted attack rate ratios comparing Mexican Americans with non-Hispanic whites were 1.59 (95% CI, 1.05 to 2.41) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.18 to 1.45) among women and men, respectively. Corresponding incidence ratios were 1.52 (95% CI, 1.28 to 1.80) and 1.25 (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.42).
Conclusions This is the first report documenting greater incidence of hospitalized myocardial infarction among Mexican Americans than among non-Hispanic whites, a biologically plausible finding given the risk factor patterns observed in the Mexican-American population. Public health planners and clinicians should be aware of the importance of myocardial infarction as a health problem in the Mexican-American population. Culturally appropriate prevention strategies should be developed for and tested in Mexican-American populations.
Key Words: myocardial infarction epidemiology registries men women
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Only very limited information is available concerning the natural history of coronary heart disease among US Hispanics, the nation's second largest minority group, of which Mexican Americans constitute a large component. On the basis of vital statistics studies, mortality from coronary heart disease has been reported to be lower among Mexican Americans than among other Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations in the United States.21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Reported trends in mortality rates for coronary heart disease and acute myocardial infarction are inconsistent. Several reports indicated that mortality may have declined less among Mexican Americans than among non-Hispanic whites.24 27 28 However, at least one report showed similar declines for both ethnic groups.29 Two studies of the prevalence of myocardial infarction have indicated similar or lower prevalence among Mexican Americans than among non-Hispanic whites30 31 ; however, comparisons based on prevalence could reflect ethnic differences in myocardial infarction case-fatality. Early results from the CCHP indicated greater 28-day case-fatality after myocardial infarction among Mexican Americans than among non-Hispanic whites32 33 ; therefore, lower prevalence in Mexican Americans does not necessarily indicate lower incidence.
To investigate the apparent inconsistency between the expected higher rate of incidence of myocardial infarction based on risk factor distributions and observations from vital statistics registries, a community surveillance system for coronary events was established. The CCHP was designed to elucidate certain critical components of the natural history of coronary heart disease as it occurs in two distinct and contrasting populations, Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic whites, within the single community of Corpus Christi/Nueces County, Texas. In this report, hospitalization rates for incident myocardial infarction are examined to determine whether Mexican Americans have greater incidence of myocardial infarction than non-Hispanic whites. In addition, we report attack rates for hospitalized myocardial infarction, including both incident and recurrent events.
| Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
291 145 in 1990, with
95% of the county
population residing within the central city of Corpus
Christi.34 Of the total population, 43% were non-Hispanic
whites, 52% were persons of Hispanic origin (of these, 92% were
Mexican-Americans), and 5% were African Americans or of other races.
In the target population 25 through 74 years old, 51% were
non-Hispanic whites and 45% were of Hispanic origin. The more detailed
data from the 1990 US Census35 showed marked
sociodemographic differences between the two major ethnic groups in
Nueces County. Mexican Americans had fewer years of formal education
(50% of Mexican-American adults were high school graduates versus 85%
of non-Hispanic whites). Furthermore, a greater percentage of Mexican
Americans, 29%, than non-Hispanic whites, 10%, reported incomes below
the poverty level. Medical care in Nueces County is self-contained, a situation that is essential to the accurate population-based ascertainment of cardiac events. At the beginning of this 48-month period, there were seven acute-care hospitals whose combined catchment areas included the entire resident population of the county. As a result of hospital closure and construction, by the end of this period, there were six acute-care hospitals in Corpus Christi. Surveillance occurred at all times in all hospitals in operation. Each of the hospitals maintained dedicated special-care units, although facilities for specialized cardiac procedures, such as angiography and aortocoronary bypass surgery, were available only at the three largest hospitals. San Antonio, the nearest urban center with medical care rivaling the quality available locally, is >150 miles from Nueces County; therefore, the likelihood of referral outside the county even for care on a nonemergency basis is low. This contention has been supported by a review of coronary heart diseaserelated discharges of Nueces County residents from the Veterans Administration hospital and other large private hospitals in San Antonio and Houston (data not shown).
Case Ascertainment and Data Collection
Potentially eligible patients were ascertained on a concurrent
basis during the period May 1, 1988, through April 30, 1992, by
monitoring of admissions to special-care units at the seven hospitals.
This process is similar to the "hot pursuit" procedure used in
the World Health Organization's Monitoring of Trends and Determinants
of Cardiovascular Disease (MONICA) Project.36 Special-care
units were monitored on a regular basis to identify patients admitted
with diagnoses possibly indicative of coronary heart disease. To ensure
complete ascertainment of cases of hospitalized myocardial infarction,
lists of discharges with selected coronary heart diseaserelated
diagnoses were obtained from each hospital. Those hospitalizations that
had not already been identified through the concurrent procedures
described above were reviewed. This procedure allowed the
identification of patients with definite or possible myocardial
infarctions who were hospitalized outside of the special-care units. By
capture-mark-recapture techniques, completeness of ascertainment has
been estimated to be 97.9%; estimated completeness of ascertainment
did not differ by sex or ethnicity (unpublished data). For all
potential cases, hospital records were abstracted when first available
for review, usually at least 4 to 6 months after discharge. Data were
collected on the course and care of the patient during the hospital
stay, as well as on ethnicity, sociodemographic factors, medical
history, ECGs, drugs prescribed at discharge, and discharge diagnostic
codes.
Classification of Ethnicity and Events
During the first 24 months of ascertainment, the main method of
classification of ethnicity was by self-identification during an
in-hospital interview as to "Spanish origin" and for the
subcategory of "Mexican origin," as adopted in the 1980 US
Census, supplemented by medical record abstraction.37
Ethnicity of study subjects who were not interviewed was obtained from
the hospital records. Among 683 individuals interviewed during the
first 24 months of the project, the medical record and the interview
data concerning ethnicity were in agreement in 94.1% (643/683) of
cases (
=0.90, P<.001). During months 25 through 48,
classification of ethnicity was based solely on medical record
data.
Classification of cases as definite or possible myocardial infarction or no infarction was done in accordance with criteria recommended by Gillum and others,38 as modified in the Cardiovascular Community Surveillance Project.39 These criteria, based on ECGs, cardiac enzymes, and cardiac pain as routinely available in clinical records, permit classification of coronary events as definite or possible according to the degree of specificity of the criteria that were met ("Appendix"). In this report, the measure of interest is the combined occurrence of definite and possible myocardial infarction. This measure is a sensitive indicator of the burden of myocardial infarction in a population; as such, this is the preferred measure to examine for surveillance purposes. The theoretical disadvantage to using this measure is the inclusion of noncases. Since ethnicity is not part of the classification scheme, inclusion of noncases would bias the observed ethnicity-related rate ratios toward the null; therefore, this is a conservative approach. The definite myocardial infarction category, when considered alone, comprises a subset of cases of greater specificity but of substantially lower sensitivity for myocardial infarction. That is, many true cases are excluded. Thus, examination of the subclass of definite myocardial infarction has been proposed as more appropriate for testing questions of prognosis than for testing questions of differential incidence.38 The theoretical disadvantages of using the definite myocardial infarction subclass to examine questions of differential incidence include a loss of power due to reduced sample size and decreased generalizability related to the exclusion of true cases.38 Only those enzyme data and ECG tracings that were obtained within 72 hours of admission or after onset of an in-hospital acute event were used. ECGs were classified on site by study staff certified in the application of the Minnesota Code.38 ECGs were examined for a pattern of evolving myocardial infarction; for those cases, the ECG evidence was classified as "evolving diagnostic." When evidence of evolution was not seen, ECG evidence was ranked in the highest category met by any single recording, that is, "diagnostic," "equivocal," or "other." Enzyme data were treated similarly, being classified as "abnormal," "equivocal," "normal," or "incomplete." Abnormal enzymes were considered equivocal in the presence of nonischemic causes for elevated values, such as defibrillation, surgery, liver disease, or trauma. Pain that was described as having all of the following characteristics was classified as being of cardiac origin: (1) it occurred anywhere in the anterior chest, left arm, or jaw and might also involve the back, shoulder, right arm, or abdomen on one or both sides, and (2) it had a duration of >20 minutes or multiple doses of nitrates were self-administered without relief, and (3) it had no definite noncardiac cause. Similar criteria were previously tested extensively in the Community Cardiovascular Surveillance Program and elsewhere and are currently in use in the Minnesota Heart Health Program, the Stanford Five-City Project, and the Pawtucket Heart Health Program.39 40 41 42 A computer algorithm for application of the criteria has been used in the Minnesota Heart Study, the Community Cardiovascular Surveillance Program, and the current CCHP.
In these analyses, all hospitalizations that met criteria for definite or possible myocardial infarction were included as attacks. An incident, hospitalized myocardial infarction was defined as a hospitalization of a person without a history of previous myocardial infarction, as determined from a review of the medical record and from record linkage with data in our surveillance files. That is, we checked our surveillance files to determine whether or not a person met our criteria for hospitalized myocardial infarction previously during the study period. We had no access to surveillance data before May 1, 1988; thus, this criterion introduced the possibility that we might have overestimated incidence in our earlier data relative to that found when more recent data were used. We examined this potential bias from two perspectives. In study year 1 (May 1, 1988, through April 30, 1989), 68.5% (526/768) of myocardial infarction hospitalizations were classified as incident events; in study years 2, 3, and 4, respectively, 60.4% (430/712), 61.0% (426/698), and 61.0% (423/694) were identified as incident events. In study year 1, 8.3% (64/768) of myocardial infarction hospitalizations were identified as recurrent events solely on the basis of surveillance record linkage; that is, there was no indication of a previous history of myocardial infarction in the medical records of these individuals, yet there was a previous hospitalization for definite or possible myocardial infarction according to our surveillance data. In study years 2, 3, and 4, 12.2% (87/712), 13.8% (96/698), and 14.8% (103/694) of myocardial infarction hospitalizations were identified as recurrent events solely on the basis of surveillance record linkage. Both perspectives show attainment of a plateau essentially by study year 2; thus, these data support the conclusion that the estimates of incidence reported here may be more valid beginning in study year 2 than in study year 1. The attack rates were not affected by this limited, early misclassification.
Data Analysis
Midyear population estimates for each year 1988 through 1991 for
Nueces County were obtained in 10-year ethnicity- and sex-specific
groups from the Texas Department of Health to use as denominators in
the calculation of 1-year age-specific hospitalization rates for
attacks and incident myocardial infarction. The possibility that
age-by-ethnicity interactions might be present for either attack rates
or incidence was examined by linear regression of the natural logarithm
of the age-specific rates (attacks or incidence) on study year, age
group, ethnicity, and an age-by-ethnicity interaction term separately
for women and men. Age-adjusted rates of hospitalization for incident
myocardial infarction for the two ethnic groups, by sex, were
calculated by the direct method using the Texas population (25 to 74
years old) in 1990 as the referent. Trends in hospitalization rates
were examined by linear regression of the logarithm of the rate versus
time. Annual estimates of ethnicity- and sex-related rate ratios were
calculated by use of the age-adjusted rates described above. Linear
regression of the natural logarithm of the annual rate ratios versus
study year was performed to obtain overall estimates of ethnicity- and
sex-related rate ratios and corresponding 95% CIs at the midpoint of
the study period. These overall estimates were used to test the
hypotheses that Mexican Americans would have a greater incidence of
hospitalization for myocardial infarction than non-Hispanic whites for
both women and men and that women would have a lower incidence of
hospitalization for myocardial infarction than men for both Mexican
Americans and non-Hispanic whites.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
As the primary analysis for this report, we examined and compared rates
of myocardial infarction attacks and incidence between Mexican
Americans and non-Hispanic whites and between women and men on the
basis of 4 years of data. Annual estimates of rate ratios for ethnic
and sex comparisons of myocardial infarction attacks and incidence are
shown in Figs 3
and 4
, respectively. In
every study year and for both women and men, Mexican Americans
experienced greater hospitalization rates for both myocardial
infarction attacks and incidence than non-Hispanic whites. Age-adjusted
attack rate ratios at the midpoint of the 4-year study period comparing
Mexican Americans with non-Hispanic whites were 1.59 (95% CI, 1.05 to
2.41) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.18 to 1.45) among women and men,
respectively. Corresponding incidence ratios were 1.52 (95% CI,
1.28 to 1.80) and 1.25 (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.42). In every study year and
for both Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic whites, women experienced
lower hospitalization rates for both myocardial infarction attacks and
incidence than men. Age-adjusted attack rate ratios of myocardial
infarction comparing women and men were 0.58 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.68)
and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.66) among Mexican Americans and
non-Hispanic whites, respectively. Corresponding incidence ratios were
0.61 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.63).
|
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Conversely, our findings of greater incidence of hospitalized myocardial infarction among Mexican Americans than among non-Hispanic whites conflict with analyses of death certificate data that suggest lower coronary heart disease mortality rates in Mexican Americans than in non-Hispanic whites, at least among men.21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 We have analyzed Nueces County mortality data (unpublished data) and found the same ethnic pattern as we reported for Texas29 ; thus, the inconsistency is not due to local factors operating in Nueces County. These results also contradict two reports based on prevalence of myocardial infarction. In a report from the San Antonio Heart Study, Mexican-American women had nonsignificantly higher prevalence and Mexican-American men had significantly lower prevalence of myocardial infarction than their non-Hispanic white counterparts.30 In a report from the San Luis Valley Diabetes Study, ethnic comparisons of the prevalence of myocardial infarction appeared to differ by sex and diabetic status; however, none of the ethnic comparisons reached statistical significance. Among participants who did not have diabetes, Hispanic women had lower prevalence of myocardial infarction than non-Hispanic whites, and Hispanic men a similar prevalence. Among diabetic participants, Hispanic women had similar prevalence and Hispanic men lower prevalence than non-Hispanic whites.31
The inconsistency in ethnic comparisons of myocardial infarction rates based on hospitalizations versus deaths could be explained by any of three leading considerations. Each is addressed here, in turn: (1) inadequacies in the completion of death certificates, (2) incomplete ascertainment of myocardial infarction in our surveillance data collection, and (3) real and large ethnic differences in out-of-hospital sudden cardiac death rates or silent myocardial infarction rates. Differential enumeration of the population of Nueces County by ethnicity cannot explain this inconsistency because hospitalization rates and mortality rates were calculated from the same population estimates.
1. Inadequacies in the certification of cause of death seem the likeliest explanation. Death certificates are completed by health professionals who may not be fully aware of the research uses of these data. Furthermore, ethnic differences in access to medical care and misclassification of ethnicity on death certificates may lead to spurious ethnic differences in the certified cause of death. The combined effect of these potential biases is difficult to predict and requires additional attention. On the basis of our findings of greater myocardial infarction hospitalization rates and posthospitalization case-fatality rates,33 we would expect greater community-level coronary heart disease mortality rates in Mexican Americans than in non-Hispanic whites. This implies the existence of a substantial degree of misclassification of cause of death and/or ethnicity on death certificates. Such misclassification could include overdiagnosis of myocardial infarction deaths among non-Hispanic whites, underdiagnosis among Mexican Americans, and/or misclassification of Mexican-American decedents as being non-Hispanic white. We are currently collecting death certificates and supporting data for out-of-hospital coronary heart diseaserelated deaths in Nueces County with which to examine these and other issues.
2. As noted above, we have estimated that our completeness of
ascertainment of hospitalized myocardial infarction is
98% with the
capture-mark-recapture methodology. This estimated completeness of
ascertainment did not differ by sex or ethnicity; therefore, our data
on hospitalized myocardial infarction do not appear to be biased by
differential ascertainment by ethnicity or sex. We have also examined
the issue of potential ethnicity-related differences in the validation
of myocardial infarction. In a comparison of validated cases with
clinically diagnosed cases, ie, those given a discharge diagnostic code
of 410, we observed no ethnicity-related difference in sensitivity,
specificity, or predictive values in either women or men (unpublished
data).
3. The results presented here do not include data regarding
out-of-hospital cardiac deaths. It is possible that both the death
certificatebased mortality estimates and these hospitalization
estimates are correct. If so, then an opposing and substantial ethnic
difference must exist in out-of-hospital myocardial infarction deaths.
The magnitude of the excess incidence of hospitalized myocardial
infarction among Mexican Americans was substantial, 25% for men and
50% for women in this study. Out-of-hospital cardiac deaths are
generally believed to account for
25% of myocardial infarctions. If
this latter statement is assumed to be true and the total myocardial
infarction rates (the sum of hospitalized myocardial infarctions and
out-of-hospital myocardial infarction deaths) are assumed to be equal
between the ethnic groups, the out-of-hospital myocardial infarction
mortality rate ratios comparing Mexican Americans with non-Hispanic
whites must be 0.5 and 0.25 among men and women, respectively. It seems
unlikely that ethnic differences in out-of-hospital sudden cardiac
death rates could be large enough to account for the inconsistency
between ethnic comparisons of myocardial infarction rates on the basis
of hospitalizations versus deaths. This contention is further supported
by reports indicating that the risk factors for sudden cardiac death
are similar to those for myocardial infarction46 ;
therefore, one would expect similar ethnic patterns for hospitalized
myocardial infarction and out-of-hospital sudden cardiac death. One
would expect greater, not lesser, out-of-hospital myocardial infarction
mortality among Mexican Americans than among non-Hispanic whites. We
believe that the mortality rate ratios are likely to be similar to
those reported here for hospitalizations. Nevertheless, additional
attention to the issue of out-of-hospital death is warranted. Data
regarding silent myocardial infarction can be obtained best from cohort
studies; however, for the same reasons as given above, ethnic
differences in the occurrence of silent myocardial infarction that
oppose and are large enough to offset the pattern observed for
hospitalized myocardial infarction seem unlikely.
The inconsistency between these incidence data and other prevalence data, such as those reported from the San Antonio Heart Study,30 can be explained by differential survival after myocardial infarction. Prevalence is related to both incidence and survival. Therefore, a group with greater incidence of myocardial infarction and greater case-fatality, such as Mexican Americans, can have lower prevalence of myocardial infarction than a group with both lower incidence and better postmyocardial infarction survival, such as non-Hispanic whites. We have reported greater short- and long-term mortality after myocardial infarction among Mexican Americans than among non-Hispanic whites.32 33 As expected, the greater mortality observed among Mexican Americans after myocardial infarction was related, in part, to the greater prevalence of diabetes among Mexican Americans hospitalized for myocardial infarction.33 47 This ethnic difference in survival after myocardial infarction might explain the inconsistency in ethnic comparisons on the basis of prevalence and incidence data. Additional data regarding ethnic differences in the incidence of myocardial infarction from other studies of these ethnic groups could help resolve the inconsistencies identified in this report.
As expected, rate ratios comparing myocardial infarction incidence and attack rates between women and men were consistent with results from many other studies in showing substantially lower rates among women than among men in both ethnic groups. These expected results add further strength to the validity of our inferences related to ethnic differences.
Our present analysis of trends in myocardial infarction incidence and attack rates has limited power because of its short duration to date (4 years). Even so, the trends seem to be declining more rapidly among Mexican Americans than among non-Hispanic whites and more rapidly among women than among men. These findings are related primarily to flat trends for both incidence and attack rates among non-Hispanic white men. Whether these flat trends are harbingers of an end to the decline in coronary heart disease mortality rates in non-Hispanic white men and eventually other sex and ethnic groups remains to be seen.
As indicated above, this study is limited by lack of data regarding out-of-hospital cardiac deaths and silent myocardial infarctions; plausible frequencies of these occurrences do not explain our results. In addition, this study has several important strengths. First, this study is population-based, at least in terms of hospitalizations for myocardial infarction. All of the acute-care hospitals in Nueces County were participating in this surveillance program. According to estimates of completeness of ascertainment, almost every person residing in Nueces County who was hospitalized with a myocardial infarction in Nueces County during the study period was included in this analysis. Furthermore, Nueces County is relatively isolated from other centers of medical care. Few patients leave Nueces County for acute medical care; thus, the effects of selection bias regarding sources of care outside the community should be minimal. Second, the Mexican-American population in Nueces County is large enough to provide stable estimates of incidence; thus, chance is an unlikely explanation of our results. This contention is supported by the relatively narrow 95% CIs associated with the reported rate ratios. Finally, the Hispanic population studied, Mexican Americans, is the largest subgroup of Hispanics in the United States; thus, these results have substantial public health importance.
These findings confirm our previously published results based on 1 year of case ascertainment of total myocardial infarction20 and support the contention that Mexican Americans have a greater incidence of myocardial infarction than non-Hispanic whites among both women and men. Furthermore, this finding is biologically plausible, given the risk factor patterns observed in the Mexican-American population. Because of both immigration and natality, the Mexican-American population in the United States is younger and growing more rapidly than the non-Hispanic white population. Over the next several decades, one can predict that an increasing number of Mexican Americans will be entering the age range in which coronary heart disease in general and myocardial infarction in particular are the leading health problems. Public health planners and clinicians should be aware of the importance of myocardial infarction as a health problem in the Mexican-American population. Culturally appropriate prevention strategies should be developed for and tested in Mexican-American populations.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
| Footnotes |
|---|
| Appendix 1 |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
A more detailed description of criteria for myocardial infarction is available from the authors on request.
Received May 29, 1996; revision received October 30, 1996; accepted November 12, 1996.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. Mehrotra, D. Kermah, L. Fried, S. Adler, and K. Norris Racial Differences in Mortality Among Those with CKD J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., July 1, 2008; 19(7): 1403 - 1410. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. T. Nguyen and A. G. Stack Ethnic Disparities in Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Coronary Disease Prevalence among Individuals with Chronic Kidney Disease: Findings from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., June 1, 2006; 17(6): 1716 - 1723. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. D. Reaven and J. Sacks Reduced Coronary Artery and Abdominal Aortic Calcification in Hispanics With Type 2 Diabetes Diabetes Care, May 1, 2004; 27(5): 1115 - 1120. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. J. Hunt, R. G. Resendez, K. Williams, S. M. Haffner, M. P. Stern, and H. P. Hazuda All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality among Mexican-American and Non-Hispanic White Older Participants in the San Antonio Heart Study-- Evidence against the "Hispanic Paradox" Am. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2003; 158(11): 1048 - 1057. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. D. Graves and P. M. Miller Behavioral Medicine in the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease Behav Modif, January 1, 2003; 27(1): 3 - 25. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. J. Swenson, M. J. Trepka, M. J. Rewers, S. Scarbro, W. R. Hiatt, and R. F. Hamman Cardiovascular Disease Mortality in Hispanics and Non-Hispanic Whites Am. J. Epidemiol., November 15, 2002; 156(10): 919 - 928. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. E. Bild, D. A. Bluemke, G. L. Burke, R. Detrano, A. V. Diez Roux, A. R. Folsom, P. Greenland, D. R. JacobsJr., R. Kronmal, K. Liu, et al. Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis: Objectives and Design Am. J. Epidemiol., November 1, 2002; 156(9): 871 - 881. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. J. Hunt, K. Williams, R. G. Resendez, H. P. Hazuda, S. M. Haffner, and M. P. Stern All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality Among Diabetic Participants in the San Antonio Heart Study: Evidence against the "Hispanic Paradox" Diabetes Care, September 1, 2002; 25(9): 1557 - 1563. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. L. Roger, S. J. Jacobsen, S. A. Weston, T. Y. Goraya, J. Killian, G. S. Reeder, T. E. Kottke, B. P. Yawn, and R. L. Frye Trends in the Incidence and Survival of Patients with Hospitalized Myocardial Infarction, Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1979 to 1994 Ann Intern Med, March 5, 2002; 136(5): 341 - 348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Yusuf, S. Reddy, S. Ounpuu, and S. Anand Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases: Part II: Variations in Cardiovascular Disease by Specific Ethnic Groups and Geographic Regions and Prevention Strategies Circulation, December 4, 2001; 104(23): 2855 - 2864. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. B. Morgenstern, T. H. Wein, M. A. Smith, L. A. Moye, D. K. Pandey, and D. R. Labarthe Comparison of stroke hospitalization rates among Mexican-Americans and non-Hispanic whites Neurology, May 23, 2000; 54(10): 2000 - 2002. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. C. Goff Jr, D. K. Pandey, F. A. Chan, C. Ortiz, and M. Z. Nichaman Congestive Heart Failure in the United States: Is There More Than Meets the I(CD Code)? The Corpus Christi Heart Project Arch Intern Med, January 24, 2000; 160(2): 197 - 202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |