Krumholz, Harlan M.

Background: Whether patients with STEMI with longer times from symptom onset to hospital presentation are less likely to be treated with any reperfusion therapy or treated with less urgency resulting in longer door-to-balloon and door-to-needle times is not known. The relationship between delay in hospital presentation and the quality of reperfusion therapy for patients with STEMI has not been examined Methods: We constructed 3 cohorts of STEMI patients to analyze use of any reperfusion (n=440,398), door-to-balloon time (n=67,207), and door-to-drug time (n=183,441) as a function of delay in hospital presentation. We constructed multivariable generalized linear models for each outcome to estimate the associations between delay in hospital presentation adjusted for all patient and hospital characteristics. Results: In adjusted analysis, longer times from symptom onset to hospital presentation was associated with lower use of any reperfusion therapy (p<0.0001 for trend). For early presenters with times of ≤1 hour, >1 to 2 hours, and >2 to 3 hours, 77%, 77%, and 73% of patients received any reperfusion therapy, respectively, and late presenters with times >9 to 10 hours, >10 to 11 hours, and >11 to 12 hours were treated with any reperfusion therapy in 53%, 50%, and 46%, respectively. Delay in hospital presentation was associated with longer drug-to-balloon and door-to-drug times (p<0.0001 for trend). For time intervals of ≤ 1 hour, >1 to 2 hours, >2 to 3 hours, >9 to 10 hours, >10 to 11 hours, and >11 to 12 hours, patients with STEMI were treated with door-to-balloon times of 99, 101, 106, 123, 125, and 123 minutes respectively. For delay time intervals of ≤ 1 hour, >1 to 2 hours, >2 to 3 hours, >9 to 10 hours, >10 to 11 hours, and >11 to 12 hours, patients were treated with door-to-drug times of 32, 34, 36, 46, 44, and 46 minutes, respectively. Conclusions: Longer time from symptom onset to hospital presentation has important implications for subsequent treatment and was associated with lower use of any reperfusion therapy and longer door-to-balloon and door-to-drug times. Longer delay in hospital presentation is associated with worse system performance for reperfusion therapy quality and represents an opportunity to improve quality of care for STEMI patients.

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.

Delayed contact with the medical system may lead to worse patient outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), particularly ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We examined the effect of previously unstudied aspects of patients’ characteristics on delays to presentation, including health status, depressive symptoms, and socioeconomic status. Within the Translational Research Investigating Underlying disparities in acute Myocardial infarction Patients’ Health status (TRIUMPH) study, we examined predictors of delays to hospital presentation in 1,476 patients with AMI from 26 sites using multivariable hierarchical ordinal models. Time from symptom onset to hospital presentation was categorized as ≤2 hours, >2 to 6 hours, and >6 hours. Time to hospital presentation was ≤2 hours in 540 (36.6%) patients, between 2– 6 hours in 354 (24.0%) patients, and >6 hours in 582 (39.4%) patients. Factors associated with longer delays to presentation included frequent angina (compared to no angina: daily angina, Odds Ratio [OR] of 3.48 [95% CI: 1.53–7.88]; weekly angina, 2.46 [1.64 –3.67]; and monthly angina, 1.26 [0.96 –1.64]; p for trend<.001), presentation during weekday work hours (8am to 5pm) (compared to weekend: weekday, 1.40 [1.06, 1.85]; weeknight, 1.15 [0.85,1.54]; p for trend = 0.05), cost barriers (1.39 [1.05 to 1.85]; p=0.02), and no healthcare insurance (1.56 [1.15–2.12]; p=0.005). In contrast, patients with STEMI (0.55 [0.43– 0.70]; p<.001), prior coronary revascularization (0.67 [0.48 – 0.92]; p=0.01) and prior AMI (0.68 [0.48 – 0.97]; p=0.03) were more likely to present earlier. No relationship was found for depression, educational level, social support, or marital status. More frequent angina, cost barriers, no healthcare insurance, and time of day are associated with longer delays to hospital presentation, while those with prior AMIs and coronary revascularization were more likely to present earlier. Efforts to reduce delays should address patient issues related to health status (like angina), cost burden, and healthcare access.

OBJECTIVETo examine temporal trends in utilization of glucose-lowering medications, glycemic control, and rate of severe hypoglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSUsing claims data from 1.66 million privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients with T2DM from 2006 to 2013, we estimated the annual 1) age- and sex-standardized proportion of patients who filled each class of agents; 2) age-, sex-, race-, and region-standardized proportion with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) &lt;6%, 6 to &lt;7%, 7 to &lt;8%, 8 to &lt;9%, ≥9%; and 3) age- and sex-standardized rate of severe hypoglycemia among those using medications. Proportions were calculated overall and stratified by age-group (18–44, 45–64, 65–74, and ≥75 years) and number of chronic comorbidities (zero, one, and two or more).RESULTSFrom 2006 to 2013, use increased for metformin (from 47.6 to 53.5%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (0.5 to 14.9%), and insulin (17.1 to 23.0%) but declined for sulfonylureas (38.8 to 30.8%) and thiazolidinediones (28.5 to 5.6%; all P &lt; 0.001). The proportion of patients with HbA1c &lt;7% declined (from 56.4 to 54.2%; P &lt; 0.001) and with HbA1c ≥9% increased (9.9 to 12.2%; P &lt; 0.001). Glycemic control varied by age and was poor among 23.3% of the youngest and 6.3% of the oldest patients in 2013. The overall rate of severe hypoglycemia remained the same (1.3 per 100 person-years; P = 0.72), declined modestly among the oldest patients (from 2.9 to 2.3; P &lt; 0.001), and remained high among those with two or more comorbidities (3.2 to 3.5; P = 0.36).CONCLUSIONSDuring the recent 8-year period, the use of glucose-lowering drugs has changed dramatically among patients with T2DM. Overall glycemic control has not improved and remains poor among nearly a quarter of the youngest patients. The overall rate of severe hypoglycemia remains largely unchanged.