Jacobs, Alice K.

Previous studies about the COVID-19 pandemic on STEMI patient outcomes have conflicting results. It remains unclear if this may be attributed to regional differences and/or differences during COVID-19 wave periods. Using the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease registry data, we evaluated (1) time metrics related to STEMI system goals and (2) regional variation in STEMI incidence and in-hospital mortality during pandemic wave time periods. The study included all patients 18–100 years old admitted with STEMI (n = 72,516) to 1 of 435 American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease hospitals (1 October 2019–31 December 2021). Of these, 70.8% were male and 73.0% non-Hispanic White, with a median age of 63 (IQR 18) years. Compared to pre-pandemic time frames, patients with STEMI had a higher risk profile, delayed time to treatment, were treated with fibrinolytic therapy or primary PCI, and were transferred for primary PCI at similar rates, and had higher adjusted in-hospital mortality (during the second wave in the South and Midwest). Preservation of STEMI systems of care resulted in an overall lower in-hospital mortality rate than predicted, although opportunities exist to improve treatment delays. Regional differences in mortality rates require further study.

Background: Hospitals’ risk-standardized mortality rates and outlier status (significantly higher/lower rates) are reported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients using Medicare claims data. New York now has AMI claims data with blood pressure and heart rate added. Objective: The objective of this study was to see whether the appended database yields different hospital assessments than standard claims data. Methods: New York State clinically appended claims data for AMI were used to create 2 different risk models based on CMS methods: 1 with and 1 without the added clinical data. Model discrimination was compared, and differences between the models in hospital outlier status and tertile status were examined. Results: Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were both significant predictors of mortality in the clinically appended model. The C statistic for the model with the clinical variables added was significantly higher (0.803 vs. 0.773, P<0.001). The model without clinical variables identified 10 low outliers and all of them were percutaneous coronary intervention hospitals. When clinical variables were included in the model, only 6 of those 10 hospitals were low outliers, but there were 2 new low outliers. The model without clinical variables had only 3 high outliers, and the model with clinical variables included identified 2 new high outliers. Conclusion: Appending even a small number of clinical data elements to administrative data resulted in a difference in the assessment of hospital mortality outliers for AMI. The strategy of adding limited but important clinical data elements to administrative datasets should be considered when evaluating hospital quality for procedures and other medical conditions.

Background— Appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization (DC) were recently published. These criteria are yet to be examined for a large population of patients undergoing DC. Methods and Results— New York State’s Cardiac Diagnostic Catheterization Database was used to identify patients undergoing DC for coronary artery disease between 2010 and 2011 for suspected coronary artery disease. Patients were rated by the appropriate use criteria as appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate for DC. The relationships between various patient characteristics and the appropriateness ratings were examined, along with the relationships between hospital-level inappropriateness, for DC and 2 other hospital-level variables (hospital DC volume and percutaneous coronary intervention inappropriateness). Of the 8986 patients who could be rated for appropriateness, 35.3% were rated as appropriate, 39.8% as uncertain, and 24.9% as inappropriate. Of the 2240 patients rated as inappropriate, 56.7% were asymptomatic/had no previous stress test/had low or intermediate global coronary artery disease risk, 36.0% had a previous stress test with low-risk findings and no symptoms, and 7.3% were symptomatic/had no previous stress test/had low pretest probability. The median hospital-level inappropriateness rate was 28.5%, with a maximum of 48.8% and a minimum of 8.6%. Hospital-level inappropriateness was not related to hospital volume or inappropriateness for percutaneous coronary intervention. Conclusions— One quarter of patients undergoing DC for suspected coronary artery disease were rated as inappropriate for the procedure, approximately two thirds of these inappropriate patients had no previous stress test, and ≈90% of inappropriate patients with no previous stress test were asymptomatic with low or intermediate global risk scores.

Background— A simple risk score to predict long-term mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using preprocedural risk factors is currently not available. In this study, we created one by simplifying the results of a Cox proportional hazards model. Methods and Results— A total of 11 897 patients who underwent PCI from October through December 2003 in New York State were randomly divided into derivation and validation samples. Patients’ vital statuses were tracked using the National Death Index through the end of 2008. A Cox proportional hazards model was fit to predict death after PCI using the derivation sample, and a simplified risk score was created. The Cox model identified 12 separate risk factors for mortality including older age, extreme body mass indexes, multivessel disease, a lower ejection fraction, unstable hemodynamic state or shock, several comorbidities (cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, and renal failure), and a history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The C statistics of this model when applied to the validation sample were 0.787, 0.785, and 0.773 for risks of death within 1, 3, and 5 years after PCI, respectively. In addition, the point-based risk score demonstrated good agreement between patients’ observed and predicted risks of death. Conclusions— A simple risk score created from a more complicated Cox proportional hazards model can be used to accurately predict a patient’s risk of long-term mortality after PCI.

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)

Background— There are evidence-based guidelines for staging of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but we are not aware of any evidence comparing the strategy of complete revascularization (CR) with PCI in the index admission versus the strategy of staging in a subsequent admission for patients with coronary artery disease without STEMI. Methods and Results— PCI patients without STEMI undergoing PCI in New York between 2007 and 2009 were separated into 2 groups: those with acute coronary syndrome but no STEMI, and those without acute coronary syndrome. For each group, patients who underwent CR in the index admission were then propensity matched to patients staged within 60 days to obtain CR based on 17 patient risk factors related to longer-term mortality, and 3-year mortality rates were compared for the propensity-matched groups. Outcomes were also compared for preselected subgroups. For propensity-matched patients without acute coronary syndrome, the all-cause mortality rates at 3 years for patients who underwent CR in the index hospitalization and patients staged for CR within 60 days of discharge were 5.62% and 5.97%, P =0.93, respectively. For propensity-matched patients with acute coronary syndrome but without STEMI, the all-cause mortality rates at 3 years for patients who underwent CR in the index hospitalization and patients staged for CR within 60 days of discharge were 6.59% and 5.92%, P =0.41, respectively. Conclusions— Patients with coronary artery disease without STEMI do not have significantly lower 3-year mortality rates with staged PCI than when they undergo CR in the index admission.

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.