4.4 Article

Racial Differences in Quality of Care and Outcomes After Acute Coronary Syndrome

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 121, 期 12, 页码 1489-1495

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.02.036

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Heart Association Mentored Clinical and Population Research Award (Palo Alto, California, USA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Guideline adherence and variation in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) outcomes by race in the modern era of drug-eluting stents (DES) are not well understood. Previous studies also fail to capture rapidly growing minority populations, such as Asians. A retrospective analysis of 689,238 hospitalizations for ACS across all insurance types from 2008 to 2011 from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database was performed to determine whether quality of ACS care and mortality differ by race (white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or Native American), with adjustment for patient clinical and demographic characteristics and clustering by hospital. We found that black patients had the lowest in-hospital mortality rates (5% vs 6% to 7% for other races, p <0.0001, odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97 to 1.07), despite low rates of timely angiography in ST elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and lower use of DES (30% vs 38% to 40% for other races, p <0.0001). In contrast, Asian patients had the highest in-hospital mortality rates (7% vs 5% to 7% for other races, p <0.0001, odds ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.20, relative to white patients), despite higher rates of timely angiography in ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and the highest use of DES (74% vs 63% to 68% for other races, p <0.0001). Asian patients had the worst in-hospital mortality outcomes after ACS, despite high use of early invasive treatments. Black patients had better in-hospital outcomes despite receiving less guideline-driven care. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据