Ye, Zhong

AbstractObjectiveTo determine whether disparities in access to invasive cardiac procedures still exist for Medicaid patients, given how old earlier studies are and given changes in the interim in appropriateness guidelines.Patients and MethodsA total of 5,022 Medicaid and private insurance patients in New York from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009 under age 65 with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were compared with regard to their access to percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) before and after controlling for numerous patient characteristics and other important factors.ResultsMedicaid patients were significantly less likely to be admitted initially to a hospital certified to perform PCI (90.4% vs. 94.3%, P < 0.001). Also, Medicaid patients were found to be significantly less likely to undergo PCI than other patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.81, 95% CI 0.66, 0.98, P = 0.03). When the probability of each hospital performing PCI for STEMI patients was controlled for, Medicaid patients were still less likely to undergo PCI after controlling for other risk factors (AOR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.65, 0.99, P = 0.04).ConclusionsMedicaid STEMI patients are significantly less likely to undergo PCI within the same day of admission as private pay patients even after adjusting for patient characteristics related to receiving PCI, and the strength of this relationship is not diminished when controlling for whether the admitting hospital has approval to perform PCI or controlling for the tendency of the admitting hospital to treat STEMI with PCI. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:470‐481)

ObjectivesTo compare 2‐year outcomes (mortality, mortality/myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel PCI (TVPCI), and target lesion PCI (TLPCI)) for patients receiving EES and ZES.BackgroundThe utilization of drug‐eluting coronary stents (DES) among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) has increased dramatically in the last decade. Everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) and ENDEAVOR zotarolimus eluting stents (ZES) constitute the latest generation of approved DES in the United States, but little is known about their relative effectiveness.MethodsNew York patients undergoing EES and ZES revascularization without any other type of stent between 7/08 and 12/08 were propensity matched at the hospital level using multiple patient, operator, and hospital characteristics, and matched patients were followed through the end of 2010 to obtain comparative 2‐year outcomes.ResultsA total of 3286 patients were propensity‐matched. Patients receiving EES had a significantly lower TVPCI rate (9.0% vs. 11.9%, AHR = 1.31, 95% CI (1.04, 1.65)) and a significantly lower TLPCI rate (6.0% vs. 8.3%, AHR = 1.35, 95% CI (1.02, 1.79)). There was no significant difference between EES and ZES for mortality or MI/mortality.ConclusionsThere were no significant differences in the hard endpoints of death or MI between patients who received EES versus those who received ZES (ENDEAVOR). Patients with EES experienced lower repeat revascularization rates than patients with ZES at 24 months. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background— The benefit of primary percutaneous coronary interventions (P-PCI) for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been well documented. However, controversy still exists as to whether PCI should be expanded to hospitals without coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Methods and Results— Patients who were discharged after PCI for STEMI between January 1, 2003, and December 12, 2006, in P-PCI centers (hospitals with no coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and PCI only for patients with STEMI) were propensity matched with patients in full service centers, and mortality and subsequent revascularization rates were compared. For patients undergoing PCI, there were no differences for in-hospital/30-day mortality (2.3% for P-PCI centers versus 1.9% for full service centers [ P =0.40]), emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery immediately after PCI (0.06% versus 0.35%, P =0.06), 3-year mortality (7.1% versus 5.9%, P =0.07), or 3-year subsequent revascularization (23.8% versus 21.5%, P =0.52). P-PCI centers had a lower same/next day coronary artery bypass graft rate (0.23% versus 0.69%, P =0.046) and higher repeat target vessel PCI rates (12.1% versus 9.0%, P =0.003). For patients with STEMI who did not undergo PCI, P-PCI centers had higher in-hospital mortality (28.5% versus 22.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.75). Conclusions— No differences between P-PCI centers and full service centers were found in in-hospital/30-day mortality, the need for emergency surgery, 3-year mortality or subsequent revascularization, but P-PCI centers had higher repeat target vessel PCI rates and higher mortality rates for patients who did not undergo PCI. P-PCI centers should be monitored closely, including the monitoring of patients with STEMI who did not undergo PCI.