Atreya, Auras R.

AbstractAlthough pulmonary hypertension (PH) is widely prevalent in India, care delivery for this condition has unique challenges in a lower middle‐income country (LMIC). To describe care delivery for patients with PH and associated barriers in India. We interviewed physicians across eight healthcare systems in India about PH clinical care using semi‐structured enquiries to understand care delivery and associated challenges in their specific practice as well as the associated health system. Qualitative analysis was performed using content analysis methodology. Physicians reported that common causes for PH in their practice were rheumatic mitral valve disease, coronary artery disease, and congenital heart disease (CHD). No center had a dedicated PH program. Only one center had a specific protocol for PH management. Diagnostic evaluations were limited, and right heart catheterizations were recommended for patients with CHD. Pulmonary vasodilator therapy was used for severe symptoms or markers of severe disease. Agents used to treat PH were widely variable across physicians and prostacyclins are unavailable in India. Barriers included limited training in PH for physicians, lack of consensus guidelines for PH specific to LMIC, and lack of financial incentives for health care systems to organize dedicated PH programs. Other barriers included poor patient health literacy and socioeconomic barriers that limit ability to test and treat PH. PH care delivery in India is variable with widely differing clinical practices. Dedicated training in PH management and establishing guidelines specific to LMIC like India can form the first step forward.

Introduction: Regional variation in the uptake of newer techniques, procedures, and management strategies have been previously reported with acute cardiac care. Limited contemporary information exists on regional differences in the care of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with cardiac arrest (CA). Methods: Using the National Inpatient Sample (2000-2017), we identified adults with AMI and concomitant CA admitted to the United States census regions of Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. Clinical outcomes of interest including in-hospital mortality, use of coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), mechanical circulatory support (MCS), hospitalization costs, and length of stay were compared across these four regions. Results: Of 9,680,257 admissions for AMI, 494,083 (5.1%) had concomitant CA. The prevalence of CA in AMI was highest in the West (6.0%) compared to the Northeast (4.4%), Midwest (5.0%), and South (5.1%), p<0.001. Admissions in the West had higher rates of STEMI presentation, cardiogenic shock, multiorgan failure, mechanical ventilation, and hemodialysis. Northeast AMI-CA admissions had lower use of coronary angiography (52.0% vs. 67.9% vs. 60.9% vs. 61.5%), PCI (38.7% vs. 51.9% vs. 44.8% vs. 46.7%), and MCS (18.4% vs. 21.8% vs. 18.1%, vs. 20.0%) compared to the Midwest, West and South (all p<0.001). Compared with the Northeast, adjusted in-hospital mortality for AMI-CA was higher in the Midwest (odds ratio [OR] 1.06 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.03-1.08]; p<0.001), South (OR 1.11 [95% CI 1.09-1.13]; p<0.001), and highest in the West (OR 1.16 [95% CI 1.13-1.18]; p<0.001). Temporal trends showed a decline in in-hospital mortality except in the West, which showed a slight increase. Compared to other regions, AMI-CA admissions from the Northeast had longer in-hospital stays and less frequent palliative care consultations (all p<0.001). Admissions in the West had higher rates of palliative care consultations, DNR status, and highest hospitalization costs. Conclusions: We identified significant regional disparities in the management and outcomes of AMI-CA. Efforts to improve and provide uniform care for AMI-CA across regions may be essential.