Admission to hospitals with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities :impact on long-term costs and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Admission to a hospital with a capability for cardiac procedures is associated with a higher likelihood of referral for a cardiac procedure but not with a better short-term clinical outcome. Whether there are differences in long-term mortality and resource consumption is not clear. We sought to determine whether elderly Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to hospitals with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities have lower long-term hospital costs and better outcomes than patients admitted to hospitals without such facilities. METHODS AND RESULTS: As part of the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project pilot in Connecticut, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from medical charts and administrative files. The study sample included 2521 patients with acute myocardial infarction covered by Medicare from 1992 to 1993. The cardiac catheterization rate was higher in the hospitals with facilities (38.6% versus 26.9%; P<0.001), but the revascularization rate was similar (20.5% versus 19.5%) during the initial episode of care and at 3 years (29.7% versus 29.7%). Mortality rates were similar for patients admitted to the 2 types of hospitals at 30 days (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.42) and at 3 years (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.26). The adjusted readmission rates were significantly lower among patients admitted to hospitals with cardiac catheterization facilities (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.94). However, the overall mean days in the hospital for the 3 years after admission was 25.9 for patients admitted to hospitals with facilities and 24.6 for the other patients (P=0.234). Adjusting for baseline patient characteristics, there was no significant difference in the 3-year costs between patients admitted to the 2 types of hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: With higher rates of cardiac catheterization and lower readmission rates, patients admitted to hospitals with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities did not have significantly different hospital costs compared with patients admitted to hospitals without these facilities. There was also no significant difference in short- or long-term mortality rates.

Trends in the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries admitted to the hospital with unstable angina.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to 1) determine the proportion of appropriate elderly patients admitted to the hospital with unstable angina who are treated with aspirin and heparin; 2) identify patient factors associated with the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) guideline-based use of aspirin and heparin; and 3) compare practice patterns and patient outcomes before and after publication of the AHCPR guidelines. BACKGROUND: Improving the care of patients with unstable angina may provide immediate opportunities to mitigate the adverse consequences of unstable angina. However, despite the importance of this diagnosis, there is a paucity of information on the patterns of treatment and outcomes across diverse sites and recent trends in practice that have occurred, especially since the publication of the AHCPR practice guidelines. METHOD: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data created from medical charts and administrative files. The sample included 300 consecutive patients admitted to one of three Connecticut hospitals in the period 1993 to 1994 and 150 consecutive patients admitted in 1995 with a principal discharge diagnosis of unstable angina or chest pain. RESULTS: Of the 384 patients > or =65 years old who had no contraindications to aspirin on hospital admission, 276 (72%) received it. Of the 369 patients > or =65 years old who had no contraindications to heparin on admission, 88 (24%) received it. Among the 321 patients > or =65 years old who had no contraindications to aspirin at hospital discharge, 208 (65%) were prescribed it. When 1995 was compared with 1993 to 1994, the use of aspirin (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3 to 4.0) and heparin (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.6 to 4.9) on hospital admission significantly increased, and the use of aspirin at discharge (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4) increased. Concomitantly, there was a significant reduction in 30-day readmission (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate an improvement in the care and outcomes of elderly patients with unstable angina, but there remain opportunities for further improvement.

Use and effectiveness of intravenous heparin therapy for treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the use and association with 30-day mortality of intravenous heparin for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients not treated with a reperfusion strategy and without contraindications to anticoagulation. BACKGROUND: The benefit of using full-dose intravenous heparin for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly is not known. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using hospital medical records of all Medicare beneficiaries admitted to the hospital with an acute myocardial infarction in Alabama, Connecticut, Iowa and Wisconsin from June 1992 through February 1993. RESULTS: Among the 6,935 patients > or = 65 years old who had no absolute chart-documented contraindications to heparin, 3,227 (47%) received early full-dose intravenous heparin therapy. After adjustment for baseline differences in demographic, clinical and treatment factors between patients with and without heparin, the use of heparin (odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.18) was not associated with a significantly better 30-day mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: Although intravenous heparin was commonly used for treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly, it was not associated with an improved 30-day mortality rate. Although the findings of this observational study must be interpreted with care, they lead us to question whether the prevalent use of intravenous heparin has therapeutic effectiveness in this population.

Clinical correlates of in-hospital costs for acute myocardial infarction in patients 65 years of age and older.

Although cost estimates for acute myocardial infarction are necessary for decisions about allocating scarce resources, there is a relative paucity of studies that estimate these costs across the entire spectrum of hospitals in actual clinical practice. This study sought to determine the correlates of in-hospital costs for acute myocardial infarction in patients 65 years of age and older. In the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project pilot, medical records were abstracted for acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations in Connecticut from June 1, 1992, through May 20, 1993. In-hospital costs were calculated by multiplying charges from cost centers by the Medicare ratio of cost-to-charge. Among the 2628 patients in the study sample, the total mean in-hospital cost was $14,772, and the median in-hospital cost was $10,409 (twenty-fifth to seventy-fifth percentile, $6960 to $17,225). The largest proportion of the costs were concentrated in room costs (43% of the total). Although several demographic and clinical characteristics were significantly associated with cost, they accounted for only 7% of the variation. In-hospital procedures and adverse outcomes accounted for 53% of the variation.

Validation of a clinical prediction rule for left ventricular ejection fraction after myocardial infarction in patients > or = 65 years old.

We sought to validate a previously described clinical prediction rule for classifying left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). As part of the Connecticut cohort of the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project (CCP) pilot study, we identified 3,093 Medicare patients who had been admitted to hospitals throughout Connecticut with an AMI in 1992 and 1993. Retrospective chart review and detailed electrocardiogram interpretation were performed. Of the 1,891 patients with an interpretable EF, 1,378 (73%) had > or = 1 of the rule's exclusion criteria. Of the remaining 513 patients, the clinical prediction rule had a positive predictive value of 89% (i.e., 456 of 513 patients had an EF > or = 40%). In a multivariate model, presentation > 6 hours after the onset of chest pain, a history of bypass surgery, and diabetes mellitus were associated with patients in whom the rule did not correctly predict an EF > or = 40%. Excluding patients with these characteristics from the rule increased the positive predictive value from 89% to 93% and excluded an additional 239 patients. The EF could not be predicted among the patients who did not meet the rule's criteria. In conclusion, a previously published clinical prediction rule for the classification of the EF in patients after an AMI correctly classified 8 of every 9 eligible elderly patients as having an EF > or = 40%. Thus, while not performing as well as it did in the original study, our findings support the use of this rule in providing clinicians with an objective method for estimating an EF > or = 40% in a specific subset of elderly patients.

Thrombolytic therapy for eligible elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the correlates of thrombolytic therapy use in a population-based sample of elderly patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction who were eligible for the therapy on presentation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using data from medical charts and administrative files. SETTING: All acute care, nongovernmental hospitals in Connecticut. PATIENTS: A cohort of 3093 patients aged 65 years and older with a discharge diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction covered by Medicare from May 1992 to May 1993. RESULTS: Among the 753 patients with ST-segment elevation of 1 mm or more in at least 2 contiguous leads, left bundle branch block not known to be old, and no absolute contraindications to thrombolytic therapy who were not referred for direct angioplasty or bypass surgery, 419 patients (56%) did not receive thrombolytic therapy. The strongest predictors of not receiving thrombolytic therapy included advanced age, absence of chest pain, presentation more than 6 hours after the onset of symptoms, left bundle branch block, total ST-segment elevation of 6 mm or less, presence of Q waves, ST-segment elevation in only 2 leads, and altered mental status. Physicians documented why they did not administer thrombolytic therapy in 19% of the charts. Delay in presentation and increased age were the most common reasons cited. Among the subset of 261 patients who presented with chest pain and within 6 hours of symptoms, 197 (75%) received thrombolytic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Many eligible and ideal patients for thrombolytic therapy are not treated. Physicians are less likely to use thrombolytic therapy in eligible patients with characteristics associated with an increased risk of bleeding, lower-risk infarction, less certain diagnosis, less certain efficacy, or altered mental status. These findings suggest that the lack of treatment represents a clinical judgment rather than an inadvertent omission. In some cases, such as the lower use of thrombolytic therapy with older age, these judgments are not consistent with the published literature and may represent opportunities to improve care.