Dataset Information

Comparison of Door-to-Balloon Time and 30-Day Mortality According to Symptom Presentation in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

ABSTRACT: Background: We hypothesized that symptom presentation in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may affect their management and subsequent outcome. Methods and Results: Using Rural AMI Registry data, 1,337 consecutive patients with AMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were analyzed. Typical symptoms were defined as any symptoms of chest pain or pressure due to myocardial ischemia. We considered the specific symptoms of dyspnea, nausea, or vomiting as atypical symptoms. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. There were 150 (11.2%) and 1,187 (88.8%) patients who presented with atypical and typical symptoms, respectively. Those who presented with atypical symptoms were significantly older (mean [±SD] age 74±12 vs. 68±13 years; P<0.001) and had a higher Killip class (46.7% vs. 21.8%; P<0.001) than patients presenting with typical symptoms. The prevalence of door-to-balloon time of ≤90 min was significantly lower in patients with atypical than typical symptoms (40.0% vs. 66.3%; P<0.001). At 30 days, there were 55 incidents of all-cause death. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that symptom presentation was associated with 30-day mortality (hazard ratio 2.33; 95% confidence interval 1.20-4.38; P<0.05). Conclusions: Atypical symptoms in patients with AMI are less likely to lead to timely reperfusion and are associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality.

SUBMITTER: Nakahashi T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8024011 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Door-to-Balloon Time and 30-Day Mortality According to Symptom Presentation in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Nakahashi Takuya T Sakata Kenji K Masuda Jun J Kumagai Naoto N Higuma Takumi T Ogimoto Akiyoshi A Tanigawa Takashi T Hanada Hiroyuki H Nakamura Mashio M Takamura Masayuki M Dohi Kaoru K

Circulation reports 20210319 4

Background: We hypothesized that symptom presentation in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may affect their management and subsequent outcome. Methods and Results: Using Rural AMI Registry data, 1,337 consecutive patients with AMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were analyzed. Typical symptoms were defined as any symptoms of chest pain or pressure due to myocardial ischemia. We considered the specific symptoms of dyspnea, nausea, or vomi ...[more]

PMID: 33842724

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage health plans covered 37% of beneficiaries in 2018, and coverage increased to 48% in 2022. Whether Medicare Advantage plans provide similar care for patients presenting with specific clinical conditions is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare 30-day mortality and treatment for Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI) from 2009 to 2018.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study that included 557 309 participants with ST-segment elevation [acute] MI (STEMI) and 1 670 193 with non-ST-segment elevation [acute] MI (NSTEMI) presenting to US hospitals from 2009-2018 (date of final follow up, December 31, 2019).ExposuresEnrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was adjusted 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included age- and sex-adjusted rates of procedure use (catheterization, revascularization), postdischarge medication prescriptions and adherence, and measures of health system performance (intensive care unit [ICU] admission and 30-day readmissions).ResultsThe study included a total of 2 227 502 participants, and the mean age in 2018 ranged from 76.9 years (Medicare Advantage STEMI) to 79.3 years (traditional Medicare NSTEMI), with similar proportions of female patients in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare (41.4% vs 41.9% for STEMI in 2018). Enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare was associated with significantly lower adjusted 30-day mortality rates in 2009 (19.1% vs 20.6% for STEMI; difference, -1.5 percentage points [95% CI, -2.2 to -0.7] and 12.0% vs 12.5% for NSTEMI; difference, -0.5 percentage points [95% CI, -0.9% to -0.1%]). By 2018, mortality had declined in all groups, and there were no longer statically significant differences between Medicare Advantage (17.7%) and traditional Medicare (17.8%) for STEMI (difference, 0.0 percentage points [95% CI, -0.7 to 0.6]) or between Medicare Advantage (10.9%) and traditional Medicare (11.1%) for NSTEMI (difference, -0.2 percentage points [95% CI, -0.4 to 0.1]). By 2018, there was no statistically significant difference in standardized 90-day revascularization rates between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Rates of guideline-recommended medication prescriptions were significantly higher in Medicare Advantage (91.7%) vs traditional Medicare patients (89.0%) who received a statin prescription (difference, 2.7 percentage points [95% CI, 1.2 to 4.2] for 2018 STEMI). Medicare Advantage patients were significantly less likely to be admitted to an ICU than traditional Medicare patients (for 2018 STEMI, 50.3% vs 51.2%; difference, -0.9 percentage points [95% CI, -1.8 to 0.0]) and significantly more likely to be discharged to home rather than to a postacute facility (for 2018 STEMI, 71.5% vs 70.2%; difference, 1.3 percentage points [95% CI, 0.5 to 2.1]). Adjusted 30-day readmission rates were consistently lower in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare (for 2009 STEMI, 13.8% vs 15.2%; difference, -1.3 percentage points [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.6]; and for 2018 STEMI, 11.2% vs 11.9%; difference, 0.6 percentage points [95% CI, -1.5 to 0.0]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong Medicare beneficiaries with acute MI, enrollment in Medicare Advantage, compared with traditional Medicare, was significantly associated with modestly lower rates of 30-day mortality in 2009, and the difference was no longer statistically significant by 2018. These findings, considered with other outcomes, may provide insight into differences in treatment and outcomes by Medicare insurance type.

Project description:BackgroundThe impact of reducing door-to-balloon time on hospital revenues, costs, and net income is unknown.MethodsWe prospectively determined the impact on hospital finances of (1) emergency department physician activation of the catheterization lab and (2) immediate transfer of the patient to an immediately available catheterization lab by an in-house transfer team consisting of an emergency department nurse, a critical care unit nurse, and a chest pain unit nurse. We collected financial data for 52 consecutive ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing emergency percutaneous intervention from October 1, 2004-August 31, 2005 and compared this group to 80 consecutive ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients from September 1, 2005-June 26, 2006 after protocol implementation.ResultsPer hospital admission, insurance payments (hospital revenue) decreased ($35,043 +/- $36,670 vs. $25,329 +/- $16,185, P = 0.039) along with total hospital costs ($28,082 +/- $31,453 vs. $18,195 +/- $9,242, P = 0.009). Hospital net income per admission was unchanged ($6962 vs. $7134, P = 0.95) as the drop in hospital revenue equaled the drop in costs. For every $1000 reduction in total hospital costs, insurance payments (hospital revenue) dropped $1077 for private payers and $1199 for Medicare/Medicaid. A decrease in hospital charges ($70,430 +/- $74,033 vs. $53,514 +/- $23,378, P = 0.059), diagnosis related group relative weight (3.7479 +/- 2.6731 vs. 2.9729 +/- 0.8545, P = 0.017) and outlier payments with hospital revenue>$100,000 (7.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.022) all contributed to decreasing ST-elevation myocardial infarction hospitalization revenue. One-year post-discharge financial follow-up revealed similar results: Insurance payments: $49,959 +/- $53,741 vs. $35,937 +/- $23,125, P = 0.044; Total hospital costs: $39,974 +/- $37,434 vs. $26,778 +/- $15,561, P = 0.007; Net Income: $9984 vs. $9159, P = 0.855.ConclusionAll of the financial benefits of reducing door-to-balloon time in ST-elevation myocardial infarction go to payers both during initial hospitalization and after one-year follow-up.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00800163.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Door-to-Balloon Time and 30-Day Mortality According to Symptom Presentation in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Publications

Comparison of Door-to-Balloon Time and 30-Day Mortality According to Symptom Presentation in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets