Trends in Regionalization of Care for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Initial treatment of uninsured patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction by facility percutaneous coronary intervention capabilities

BACKGROUND

Timely reperfusion is necessary to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Initial care by facilities with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capabilities reduces time to reperfusion. We sought to examine whether insurance status was associated with initial care at emergency departments (EDs) with PCI capabilities among adult patients with STEMI.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using Department of Healthcare Access and Information, a nonpublic statewide database reporting ED visits and hospitalizations in California. We included adults initially arriving at EDs with STEMI by diagnostic code (International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision or 10th Revision) from 2011 to 2019. Multivariable logistic regression modeling included initial care by PCI capable facility as the primary outcome and insurance status (none vs. any) as the primary exposure. Covariates included patient, facility, and temporal factors and we conducted multiple robustness checks.

RESULTS

We analyzed 135,358 eligible visits with STEMI included. In our multivariable model, the odds of uninsured patients being initially treated at a PCI-capable facility were significantly lower than those of insured patients (adjusted odds ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.72, p < 0.001) and was unchanged in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Uninsured patients with STEMI had significantly lower odds of first receiving care at facilities with PCI capabilities. Our results suggest potential disparities in accessing high-quality and time-sensitive treatment for uninsured patients with STEMI.

Interfacility Transfer of Uninsured vs Insured Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in California

Importance

Insurance status has been associated with whether patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presenting to emergency departments are transferred to other facilities, but whether the facility's percutaneous coronary intervention capabilities mediate this association is unknown.

Objective

To examine whether uninsured patients with STEMI were more likely than patients with insurance to experience interfacility transfer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This observational cohort study compared patients with STEMI with and without insurance who presented to California emergency departments between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, using the Patient Discharge Database and Emergency Department Discharge Database from the California Department of Health Care Access and Information. Statistical analyses were completed in April 2023.

Exposures

Primary exposures were lack of insurance and facility percutaneous coronary intervention capabilities.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was transfer status from the presenting emergency department of a percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospital, defined as a facility performing 36 percutaneous coronary interventions per year. Multivariable logistic regression models with multiple robustness checks were performed to determine the association of insurance status with the odds of transfer.

Results

This study included 135 358 patients with STEMI, of whom 32 841 patients (24.2%) were transferred (mean [SD] age, 64 [14] years; 10 100 women [30.8%]; 2542 Asian individuals [7.7%]; 2053 Black individuals [6.3%]; 8285 Hispanic individuals [25.2%]; 18 650 White individuals [56.8%]). After adjusting for time trends, patient factors, and transferring hospital characteristics (including percutaneous coronary intervention capabilities), patients who were uninsured had lower odds of experiencing interfacility transfer than those with insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

After accounting for a facility's percutaneous coronary intervention capabilities, lack of insurance was associated with lower odds of emergency department transfer for patients with STEMI. These findings warrant further investigation to understand the characteristics of facilities and outcomes for uninsured patients with STEMI.

Association of STEMI regionalization of care with de facto NSTEMI regionalization

The regionalization of care for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) may unintentionally concentrate patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) into percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capable hospitals. This could lead to benefits such as increased access to PCI-capable hospitals, but could cause harms such as crowding in some hospitals with decreased patient volume and revenue in others. We set out to assess whether STEMI regionalization programs concentrated patients with NSTEMI at STEMI-receiving hospitals.

Differential benefits of cardiac care regionalization based on driving time to percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) require timely reperfusion, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) decreases morbidity and mortality. Regionalization of STEMI care has increased timeliness and use of PCI, but it is unknown whether benefits to regionalization depend on a community's distance from its nearest PCI center. We sought to determine whether STEMI regionalization benefits, measured by access to PCI centers, timeliness of treatment (same-day or in-hospital PCI), and mortality, differ by baseline distance to nearest PCI center.

METHODS

Using a difference-in-difference-in-differences model, we examined access to PCI-capable hospitals, receipt of PCI either on the day of admission or during the care episode, and health outcomes for patients hospitalized from January 1, 2006, to September 30, 2015.

RESULTS

Of 139,408 patients (2006 to 2015), 51% could reach the nearest PCI center in <30 minutes, and 49% required ≥30 minutes driving time. For communities with baseline access ≥30 minutes, regionalization increased the probability of admission to a PCI-capable hospital by 9.4% and also increased the likelihood of receiving same-day PCI (by 11.2%) and PCI during the hospitalization (by 7.4%). Patients living within 30 minutes did not accrue significant benefits (measured by admission to a PCI-capable hospital or receipt of PCI) from regionalization initiatives. Regionalization more than halved access disparities and completely eliminated treatment disparities between communities ≥30 minutes and communities <30 minutes from the nearest PCI hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Measured by likelihood of admission to a PCI-capable facility and receipt of PCI, benefits of STEMI regionalization in California accrued only to patients whose nearest PCI center was ≥30 minutes away. We found no mortality benefits of regionalization based on distance from PCI center. Our results suggest that policymakers focus STEMI regionalization efforts in communities that are not already well serviced by PCI-capable hospitals.

Association of Cardiac Care Regionalization With Access, Treatment, and Mortality Among Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Regionalization of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) systems of care has been championed over the past decade. Although timely access to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to improve outcomes, no studies have determined how regionalization has affected the care and outcomes of patients. We sought to determine if STEMI regionalization is associated with changes in access, treatment, and outcomes.

METHODS

Using a difference-in-differences approach, we analyzed a statewide, administrative database of 139 494 patients with STEMI in California from 2006 to 2015 using regionalization data based on a survey of all local Emergency Medical Services agencies in the state.

RESULTS

For patients with STEMI, the base rate of admission to a hospital with PCI capability was 72.7%, and regionalization was associated with an increase of 5.34 percentage points (95% CI, 1.58-9.10), representing a 7.1% increase. Regionalization was also associated with a statistically significant increase of 3.54 (95% CI, 0.61-6.48) percentage points in the probability of same-day PCI, representing an increase of 7.1% from the 49.7% base rate and a 4.6% relative increase (2.97 percentage points [95% CI, 0.1-5.85]) in the probability of receiving PCI at any time during the hospitalization. There was a 1.84 percentage point decrease (95% CI, -3.31 to -0.37) in the probability of receiving fibrinolytics. For 7-day mortality, regionalization was associated with a 0.53 (95% CI, -1 to -0.06) percentage point greater reduction (representing 5.8% off the base rate of 9.1%) and a 1.75 percentage point decrease in the likelihood of all-cause 30-day readmission (95% CI, -3.39 to -0.11; representing 6.4% off the base rate of 27.4%). No differences were found in longer-term mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with STEMI in California from 2006 to 2015, STEMI regionalization was associated with increased access to a PCI-capable hospital, greater use of PCI, lower 7-day mortality, and lower 30-day readmissions.

Impact of ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Regionalization Programs on the Treatment and Outcomes of Patients Diagnosed With Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Background Many communities have implemented systems of regionalized care to improve access to timely care for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. However, patients who are ultimately diagnosed with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarctions (NSTEMIs) may also be affected, and the impact of regionalization programs on NSTEMI treatment and outcomes is unknown. We set out to determine the effects of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction regionalization schemes on treatment and outcomes of patients diagnosed with NSTEMIs. Methods and Results The cohort included all patients receiving care in emergency departments diagnosed with an NSTEMI at all nonfederal hospitals in California from January 1, 2005 to September 30, 2015. Data were analyzed using a difference-in-differences approach. The main outcomes were 1-year mortality and angiography within 3 days of the index admission. A total of 293 589 patients with NSTEMIs received care in regionalized and nonregionalized communities. Over the study period, rates of early angiography increased by 0.5 and mortality decreased by 0.9 percentage points per year among the overall population (95% CI, 0.4-0.6 and -1.0 to -0.8, respectively). Regionalization was not associated with early angiography (-0.5%; 95% CI, -1.1 to 0.1) or death (0.2%; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.8). Conclusions ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction regionalization programs were not statistically associated with changes in guideline-recommended early angiography or changes in risk of death for patients with NSTEMI. Increases in the proportion of patients with NSTEMI who underwent guideline-directed angiography and decreases in risk of mortality were accounted for by secular trends unrelated to regionalization policies.

Evaluation of STEMI Regionalization on Access, Treatment, and Outcomes Among Adults Living in Nonminority and Minority Communities

IMPORTANCE

Cardiac care regionalization, specifically for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), has been touted as a potential mechanism to reduce systematic disparities by protocolizing the treatment of these conditions. However, it is unknown whether such regionalization arrangements have widened or narrowed disparities in access, treatment, and outcomes for minority communities.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent to which disparities in access, treatment, and outcomes have changed for patients with STEMI living in zip codes that are in the top tertile of the Black or Hispanic population compared with patients in nonminority zip codes in regionalized vs nonregionalized counties.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used a quasi-experimental approach exploiting the different timing of regionalization across California. Nonpublic inpatient data for all patients with STEMI from January 1, 2006, to October 31, 2015, were analyzed using a difference-in-difference-in-differences estimation approach.

EXPOSURE

Exposure to the intervention was defined as on and after the year a patient's county was exposed to regionalization.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Access to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-capable hospital, receipt of PCI on the same day and at any time during the hospitalization, and time-specific all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

This study included 139 494 patients with STEMI; 61.9% of patients were non-Hispanic White, 5.6% Black, 17.8% Hispanic, and 9.0% Asian; 32.8% were women. Access to PCI-capable hospitals improved by 6.3 percentage points (95% CI, 5.5 to 7.1 percentage points; P < .001) when patients in nonminority communities were exposed to regionalization. Patients in minority communities experienced a 1.8-percentage point smaller improvement in access (95% CI, -2.8 to -0.8 percentage points; P < .001), or 28.9% smaller, compared with those in nonminority communities when both were exposed to regionalization. Regionalization was associated with an improvement to same-day PCI and in-hospital PCI by 5.1 percentage points (95% CI, 4.2 to 6.1 percentage points; P < .001) and 5.0 percentage points (95% CI, 4.2 to 5.9 percentage points; P < .001), respectively, for patients in nonminority communities. Patients in minority communities experienced only 33.3% and 15.1% of that benefit. Only White patients in nonminority communities experienced mortality improvement from regionalization.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although regionalization was associated with improved access to PCI hospitals and receipt of PCI treatment, patients in minority communities derived significantly smaller improvement relative to those in nonminority communities.

High acuity polytrauma centers in orthopaedic trauma: Decreasing patient mortality with effective resource utilization

BACKGROUND

There is a select number of massive-volume, high-acuity trauma centers (HACs) in the United States. Expertise in polytrauma care has been associated with improved mortality in general surgery trauma, though has not been investigated in orthopaedic trauma. With complex polytrauma proficiency comes the inherent risk of intensive care, complications, and prolonged inpatient stays, without a commensurate increase in allocated resources. The purpose of this study was to compare mortality, complications, and length of stay in polytraumatized orthopaedic patients treated at HACs vs. low-acuity trauma centers (LACs).

METHODS

The National Trauma Data Bank was queried for orthopaedic injuries with injury severity score (ISS)>15 and mortality, complications, hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, ventilation duration, and demographics. Hospitals where at least 13% (median percentage of patients with ISS > 15 admitted to all hospitals) of total admissions had an ISS>15 were classified as HAC; all others were LACs.

RESULTS

HACs admitted 86.8% of 28,314 patients with ISS>15. On univariate analysis, patients at HACs have 16% decreased odds of in-hospital mortality vs. LACs (p=0.005); the effect increased to 27% (p=0.002) on multivariate analysis. Patients at HACs have 63% greater odds of ICU admission (p<0.001), 48% higher odds of ventilatory support (p=<0.001), 38% increased odds of unplanned reoperation (p=0.007), and 37% increased odds of medical complications (p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, secondary outcome measures showed no significant difference between HACs and LACs. Patients at HACs had 2.8 days longer length-of-stay (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Severely injured orthopaedic trauma patients have decreased mortality at HACs, despite having a higher average ISS and a higher prevalence of obesity and active smoking. While there is a higher incidence of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, complications, and unplanned reoperation on univariate analysis, correction for ISS and patient factors enhances the effect of HACs on mortality, but removes the effect on secondary measures. Thus, HACs are life-saving institutions for polytraumatized orthopaedic patients, and the known resource demand of these hospitals is supported by their favorable outcome profile.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

A Statewide Assessment of Prehospital Electrocardiography Approaches of Acquisition and Interpretation for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Based on Emergency Medical Services Characteristics

Background: The American Heart Association recommends acquiring and interpreting prehospital electrocardiograms (ECG) for patients transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to the emergency department with symptoms highly suspicious of acute coronary syndrome. If interpreted correctly, prehospital ECGs have the potential to improve early detection of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and inform prehospital activation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, thus reducing total ischemic time and improving patient outcomes. Standardized protocols for prehospital ECG interpretation methods are lacking due to variations in EMS system design, training, and procedures. Objectives: We aimed to describe approaches for prehospital ECG interpretation in EMS systems across North Carolina (NC), and examine potential differences among systems. Methods: A 35-item internet survey was sent to all NC EMS systems (n = 99). Questions pertaining to prehospital ECG interpretation methods included: paramedic, computerized algorithm (i.e., software interpretation), combined approaches, and/or transmission for physician interpretation, transmission capability, cardiac catheterization laboratory activation, and EMS system characteristics (e.g. rural versus urban). Data were summarized and compared. Results: A total of 96 EMS systems across NC responded to the survey (97% response rate); of these, 69% were rural. EMS medical directors (53%) or EMS administrative directors (42%) completed the majority of surveys. While 91% of EMS systems had a prehospital ECG interpretation protocol in place, only 61% had a written cardiac catheterization laboratory activation policy. More than half (55%) of systems reported paramedic interpretation of prehospital ECGs, followed by a combined paramedic and software interpretation approach (39%), physician interpretation (4%), or software interpretation only approach (2%). Nearly 80% of EMS systems transmitted prehospital ECGs to receiving hospitals (always or sometimes), regardless of interpretation method. All EMS systems had some paid versus non-paid EMS personnel and the majority (86%) had both basic and advanced life support capabilities. Conclusions: Most NC EMS systems had a paramedic only ECG interpretation or paramedic in combination with a computerized algorithm approach. Very few used a physician read approach following transmission, even in rural service areas.