Rathore, Saif S.

Background: While lack of insurance is known to be associated with worse outcomes after myocardial infarction (MI), it is unknown whether health insurance status is associated with rates of non-elective hospitalizations after MI. Methods: Using data on 3571 U.S. MI patients enrolled between April 2005 to December 2008 in the 24-center, prospective TRIUMPH registry, we examined the association between being insured (reference), underinsured, and uninsured on rates of non-elective readmissions (all-cause) in the 1 st year following MI. Insurance status was obtained from medical records, and underinsurance was defined as those patients with insurance but with financial concerns about accessing care from patient interviews. Multivariable modified Poisson regression models were used to adjust for site, demographics, MI severity, risk factors, socio-economic, and psychological factors. Results: A total of 2269 (63.5%) patients were insured; 650 (18.2%) were underinsured; and 652 (18.3%) were uninsured. Emergency readmissions were highest for uninsured patients (25.0%), followed by the underinsured (21.8%), and lowest in insured patients (19.5%) (P<.001). After multivariable adjustment, uninsured patients had significantly higher rates of emergency readmission (adjusted RR, 1.52 [95% CI: 1.22-1.90] while underinsured patients did not (adjusted RR, 0.99 [95% CI: 0.81-1.21]) (Figure). Conclusions: Uninsured patients had a significantly higher adjusted risk of non-elective readmissions after MI, while underinsured patients did not. Future studies are needed to determine if providing even modest insurance coverage to the uninsured can minimize readmission rates.

Current guidelines recommend cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) in appropriate patients undergoing ICD implantation. However, not all physicians who implant ICDs are trained to perform CRT-D. We examined the ICD Registry to assess whether use of CRT-D implantation varied by physician certification. We determined the certification of 2128 physicians who had submitted >=10 cases between April 2006 and June 2007. We excluded patients with a prior ICD, an epicardial lead, or aged ≤18 years, leaving 111,293 patients. Physicians were grouped into mutually exclusive categories reflecting highest current certification- Electrophysiology (EP), Cardiovascular Disease (CVD), Thoracic Surgery (TS), Internal Medicine (IM), Heart Rhythm Society alternative pathway (HRS), and Other. Patients were considered eligible for CRT-D if they met the following criteria: QRS duration >=120ms, LVEF ≪26>35%, and NYHA Class III-IV. We examined crude rates of CRT-D across physician categories and developed a logistic regression model to assess the association of physician certification and CRT-D implantation. Candidate variables included demographics, cardiac status, comorbidities, and physician volume. Odds ratios were converted to relative risks. 35,851 patients met all three eligibility criteria for CRT-D, and 28,932 (80.7%) had a CRT-D implanted. EP physicians implanted the majority of CRT-D (73.6%), with fewer CRT-D placed by CVD (20.6%), TS (0.9%), IM (0.8%), HRS (1.1%), or Other (3.1%). The crude rate of CRT-D implantation was highest among EP physicians and lower in all other categories: EP- 83.1%, CVD-75.8%, TS- 57.9%, IM- 76.5%, HRS- 77.1%, Other- 73.5% (p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, CVD and TS physicians were less likely to implant CRT-D in eligible patients compared with EP physicians (EP: Ref; CVD: RR 0.92 (0.90 – 0.94); TS: RR 0.76 (0.71– 0.85)). CRT-D rates were comparable for other physician groups (IM RR 0.95 (0.87–1.01); HRS: RR 0.97 (0.90 –1.02); Other RR 0.97 (0.93–1.00)). Among eligible patients, use of CRT-D varies by physician certification. Given the benefits of CRT-D, clinicians should consider referring eligible patients to physicians with familiarity and expertise in CRT-D implantation.

Background —Although prompt treatment is a cornerstone of the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), prior studies have shown that one fourth of AMI patients arrive at the hospital >6 hours after symptom onset. It would be valuable to identify individuals at highest risk for late arrival, but predisposing factors have yet to be fully characterized. Methods and Results —Data from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project, involving Medicare beneficiaries aged >65 years hospitalized between January 1994 and February 1996 with confirmed AMI, were used to identify patients who presented “late” (≥6 hours after symptom onset). Patient characteristics were tested for associations with late presentation by use of backward stepwise logistic regression. Among 102 339 subjects, 29.4% arrived late. Significant predictors of late arrival (odds ratio, 95% CI) included diabetes (1.11, 1.07 to 1.14) and a history of angina (1.32, 1.28 to 1.35), whereas prior MI (0.82, 0.79 to 0.85), prior angioplasty (0.80, 0.75 to 0.85), prior bypass surgery (0.93, 0.89 to 0.98), and cardiac arrest (0.52, 0.46 to 0.58) predicted early presentation. Additionally, initial evaluation at an outpatient clinic (2.63, 2.51 to 2.75) and daytime presentation (1.67, 1.59 to 1.72) predicted late arrival. Finally, female sex, black race, and poverty, which were evaluated with an 8-level race–sex–socioeconomic status interaction term, were also risk factors for delay. Conclusions —Delayed hospital presentation is a common problem among Medicare beneficiaries with AMI. Factors associated with delay include not only clinical and logistical issues but also race, sex, and socioeconomic characteristics. Education efforts designed to hasten AMI treatment should be directed at individuals with risk factors for late arrival.