ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study compared risk-adjusted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes of safety-net hospitals (SNHs) and non-SNHs. BACKGROUND: Although risk adjustment is used to compare hospitals, SNHs treat a disproportionate share of uninsured and underinsured patients, who may have unmeasured risk factors, limited health care access, and poorer outcomes than patients treated at non-SNHs. METHODS: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from 2009 to 2015, we analyzed 3,746,961 patients who underwent PCI at 282 SNHs (hospitals where ≥10% of PCI patients were uninsured) and 1,134 non-SNHs. The relationship between SNH status and risk-adjusted outcomes was assessed. RESULTS: SNHs were more likely to be lower volume, rural hospitals located in the southern states. Patients treated at SNHs were younger (63 vs. 65 years), more often nonwhite (17% vs. 12%), smokers (33% vs. 26%), and more likely to be admitted through the emergency department (48% vs. 38%) and to have an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (20% vs. 14%) than non-SNHs (all p < 0.001). Patients undergoing PCI at SNHs had higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 1.23; 95% confidence interval: 1.17 to 1.32; p < 0.001), although the absolute risk difference between groups was small (0.4%). Risk-adjusted bleeding (odds ratio: 1.05; 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.12; p = 0.062) and acute kidney injury rates (odds ratio: 1.01; 95% confidence interval: 0.96 to 1.07; p = 0.51) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Despite treating a higher proportion of uninsured patients with more acute presentations, risk-adjusted PCI-related in-hospital mortality of SNHs is only marginally higher (4 additional deaths per 1,000 PCI cases) than non-SNHs, whereas risk-adjusted bleeding and acute kidney injury rates are comparable.
Subject(s)
Coronary Disease/therapy , Healthcare Disparities , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Process Assessment, Health Care , Safety-net Providers , Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , Aged , Chi-Square Distribution , Coronary Disease/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Disease/mortality , Female , Health Status , Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals, Low-Volume , Hospitals, Rural , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Medically Uninsured , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Odds Ratio , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/mortality , Registries , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The development of newer and more potent antithrombotic agents and strategies has markedly reduced cardiovascular mortality and ischemic complications in patients with acute coronary syndromes and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). With every approach to reduce coronary thrombosis, however, there is an accompanying risk of increasing bleeding complications elsewhere. Conversely, reducing bleeding complications may increase coronary thrombotic (ischemic) events. This is the Yin-Yang principle of antithrombotic therapy and strategies in PCI. Balancing both ends of the spectrum is essential, and an individualized approach to therapy is advocated. This article reviews the efficacy and bleeding risk profile of the different antithrombotic agents and strategies in PCI, including aspirin, thienopyridines, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa-inhibitors, heparin-based antithrombins, synthetic antithrombins and oral anticoagulants. Recommendations for reducing thrombotic and bleeding complications are also discussed.
