Shah, Nilay D.

Background: Health insurance coverage has been recently expanded to millions of Americans with the goal of improving access and quality of care. We evaluated long-term outcomes for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with different insurance types. Methods: From 2004 to 2010, 970 consecutive STEMI patients who presented to 29 hospitals in Minnesota, Iowa or Wisconsin were treated according to the Mayo STEMI protocol. Demographic, clinical, procedural, and long-term follow up data were prospectively collected. 953 patients were categorized into groups by insurance type - private insurance (PI, n=430), Medicare (MC, n=420), Medicaid (MD, n=68), and uninsured (UN, n=35). Results: Median duration of follow-up was 32 months, and mean ages (years) were 55±8 for PI, 75±10 for MC, 49±10 for MD, and 52±9 for UN (p<0.001). Compared to PI patients, MC and MD patients were more likely to have diabetes (both 21% vs 10%, p<0.001); MC patients had more renal failure (4% vs <1%, p=0.012) but UN patients did not differ significantly (DM 12% and CRF 0%). All groups had similar frequency of cardiogenic shock (PI 9%, MC 14%, MD 9%, UN 6%, p=0.08) and comparable door-to-balloon (in minutes(Q1,Q3): PI 69(54,107), MC 79(61,114), MD 83(55,124), UN 76(58,94), p=0.09) and door-to-needle times (in minutes(Q1,Q3): PI 26(19,34), MC 29 (21,39), MD 27(22,34), UN 17(13,21), p=0.06). MC patients had the highest incidence of in-hospital death (7.6%; p=0.003 vs PI 3.0%). Significant differences in all cause mortality between insurance groups were present on 5-year follow-up (Figure). After risk factor adjustment for age (HR 1.89 per decade, p<0.001), female sex (HR 1.16, p=0.40), diabetes (HR 1.89, p<0.001), peripheral artery disease (HR 2.06, p=0.004), heart failure (HR 1.40, p=0.14), cardiogenic shock (4.22, p<0.001) and renal failure (HR 1.62, p=0.20); insurance type was not an independent risk factor for death (p=0.26). When compared to PI, the hazard ratio for UN was associated with a trend for worse survival (HR 2.69, 95%CI 0.94, 7.67, p=0.06) while MC (HR 0.94, 95%CI 0.55, 1.61, p=0.83) and MD patients (HR 1.37, 95%CI 0.52, 3.59, p=0.53) had similar survival after adjustment for covariates. Conclusion: Timeliness of reperfusion was similar across all insurance groups. After adjustment for baseline clinical variables, there was no significant difference in long-term survival according to insurance type.

AbstractPurposeRural populations are disproportionately affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic. We characterized urban‐rural disparities in patient portal messaging utilization for COVID‐19, and, of those who used the portal during its early stage in the Midwest.MethodsWe collected over 1 million portal messages generated by midwestern Mayo Clinic patients from February to August 2020. We analyzed patient‐generated messages (PGMs) on COVID‐19 by urban‐rural locality and incorporated patients’ sociodemographic factors into the analysis.FindingsThe urban‐rural ratio of portal users, message senders, and COVID‐19 message senders was 1.18, 1.31, and 1.79, indicating greater use among urban patients. The urban‐rural ratio (1.69) of PGMs on COVID‐19 was higher than that (1.43) of general PGMs. The urban‐rural ratios of messaging were 1.72‐1.85 for COVID‐19‐related care and 1.43‐1.66 for other health care issues on COVID‐19. Compared with urban patients, rural patients sent fewer messages for COVID‐19 diagnosis and treatment but more messages for other reasons related to COVID‐19‐related health care (eg, isolation and anxiety). The frequent senders of COVID‐19‐related messages among rural patients were 40+ years old, women, married, and White.ConclusionsIn this Midwest health system, rural patients were less likely to use patient online services during a pandemic and their reasons for its use differ from urban patients. Results suggest opportunities for increasing equity in rural patient engagement in patient portals (in particular, minority populations) for COVID‐19. Public health intervention strategies could target reasons why rural patients might seek health care in a pandemic, such as social isolation and anxiety.

Background: There are limited data on uninsured patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). This study sought to compare the management and outcomes of AMI-CS between uninsured and privately insured individuals. Methods: Using the National Inpatient Sample (2000–2016), a retrospective cohort of adult (≥18 years) uninsured admissions (primary payer—self-pay or no charge) were compared with privately insured individuals. Interhospital transfers were excluded. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, temporal trends in admissions, use of cardiac procedures, do-not-resuscitate status, palliative care referrals, and resource utilization. Results: Of 402 182 AMI-CS admissions, 21 966 (5.4%) and 93 814 (23.3%) were uninsured and privately insured. Compared with private insured individuals, uninsured admissions were younger, male, from a lower socioeconomic status, had lower comorbidity, higher rates of acute organ failure, ST-segment elevation AMI-CS (77.3% versus 76.4%), and concomitant cardiac arrest (33.8% versus 31.9%; all P <0.001). Compared with 2000, in 2016, there were more uninsured (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.13–1.17]; P <0.001) and less privately insured admissions (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.83–0.87]; P <0.001). Uninsured individuals received less frequent coronary angiography (79.5% versus 81.0%), percutaneous coronary intervention (60.8% versus 62.2%), mechanical circulatory support (54% versus 55.5%), and had higher palliative care (3.8% versus 3.2%) and do-not-resuscitate status use (4.4% versus 3.2%; all P <0.001). Uninsured admissions had higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.55–1.68]; P <0.001) and resource utilization. Conclusions: Uninsured individuals have higher in-hospital mortality and lower use of guideline-directed therapies in AMI-CS compared with privately insured individuals.

Background Guidelines promote shared decision‐making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within‐encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision‐making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. Methods and Results We conducted a multicenter, encounter‐level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow‐up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. Conclusions In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02905032.

Introduction Personal digital devices that provide health information, such as the Apple Watch, have developed an increasing array of cardiopulmonary tracking features which have received regulatory clearance and are directly marketed to consumers. Despite their widespread and increasing use, data about the impact of personal digital device use on patient-reported outcomes and healthcare utilisation are sparse. Among a population of patients with atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter undergoing cardioversion, our primary aim is to determine the impact of the heart rate measurement, irregular rhythm notification, and ECG features of the Apple Watch on quality of life and healthcare utilisation. Methods and analysis We are conducting a prospective, open-label multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial, leveraging a unique patient-centred health data sharing platform for enrolment and follow-up. A total of 150 patients undergoing cardioversion for atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter will be randomised 1:1 to receive the Apple Watch Series 6 or Withings Move at the time of cardioversion. The primary outcome is the difference in the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on QualiTy-of-life global score at 6 months postcardioversion. Secondary outcomes include inpatient and outpatient healthcare utilisation. Additional secondary outcomes include a comparison of the Apple Watch ECG and pulse oximeter features with gold-standard data obtained in routine clinical care settings. Ethics and dissemination The Institutional Review Boards at Yale University, Mayo Clinic, and Duke University Health System have approved the trial protocol. This trial will provide important data to policymakers, clinicians and patients about the impact of the heart rate, irregular rhythm notification, and ECG features of widely used personal digital devices on patient quality of life and healthcare utilisation. Findings will be disseminated to study participants, at professional society meetings and in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT04468321