OBJECTIVES: African Americans with acute coronary syndromes receive cardiac catheterization less frequently than whites. The objective was to determine if such disparities extend to acute evaluation and non interventional treatment. METHODS: Data on adults with chest pain (N = 7,935) presenting to eight emergency departments (EDs) were evaluated from the Internet Tracking Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes. Groups were selected from final ED diagnosis: 1) acute myocardial infarction (AMI), n = 400; 2) unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI), n = 1,153; and 3) nonacute coronary syndrome chest pain (non-ACS CP), n = 6,382. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for AMI and UA/NSTEMI were used to evaluate racial disparities with logistic regression models. Odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for age, gender, guideline publication, and insurance status. Non-ACS CP patients were assessed by comparing electrocardiographic (ECG)/laboratory evaluation, medical treatment, admission rates, and invasive and noninvasive testing for coronary artery disease (CAD). RESULTS: African Americans with UA/NSTEMI received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors less often than whites (OR, 0.41; 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.91). African Americans with non-ACS CP underwent ECG/laboratory evaluation, medical treatment, and invasive and noninvasive testing for CAD less often than whites (p < 0.05). Other nonwhites with non-ACS CP were admitted and received invasive testing for CAD less often than whites (p < 0.01). African Americans and other nonwhites with AMI underwent catheterization less frequently than whites (OR, 0.45; 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.71 and OR, 0.40; 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.92, respectively). A similar disparity in catheterization was noted in UA/NSTEMI therapy (OR, 0.53; 95% CI = 0.40 to 0.68 and OR, 0.68; 95% CI = 0.47 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Racial disparities in acute chest pain management extend beyond cardiac catheterization. Poor compliance with recommended treatments for ACS may be an explanation.
OBJECTIVES: African Americans with acute coronary syndromes receive cardiac catheterization less frequently than whites. The objective was to determine if such disparities extend to acute evaluation and non interventional treatment. METHODS: Data on adults with chest pain (N = 7,935) presenting to eight emergency departments (EDs) were evaluated from the Internet Tracking Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes. Groups were selected from final ED diagnosis: 1) acute myocardial infarction (AMI), n = 400; 2) unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI), n = 1,153; and 3) nonacute coronary syndrome chest pain (non-ACS CP), n = 6,382. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for AMI and UA/NSTEMI were used to evaluate racial disparities with logistic regression models. Odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for age, gender, guideline publication, and insurance status. Non-ACS CP patients were assessed by comparing electrocardiographic (ECG)/laboratory evaluation, medical treatment, admission rates, and invasive and noninvasive testing for coronary artery disease (CAD). RESULTS: African Americans with UA/NSTEMI received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors less often than whites (OR, 0.41; 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.91). African Americans with non-ACS CP underwent ECG/laboratory evaluation, medical treatment, and invasive and noninvasive testing for CAD less often than whites (p < 0.05). Other nonwhites with non-ACS CP were admitted and received invasive testing for CAD less often than whites (p < 0.01). African Americans and other nonwhites with AMI underwent catheterization less frequently than whites (OR, 0.45; 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.71 and OR, 0.40; 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.92, respectively). A similar disparity in catheterization was noted in UA/NSTEMI therapy (OR, 0.53; 95% CI = 0.40 to 0.68 and OR, 0.68; 95% CI = 0.47 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Racial disparities in acute chest pain management extend beyond cardiac catheterization. Poor compliance with recommended treatments for ACS may be an explanation.
Authors: Marilyn Hravnak; Jeff Whittle; Mary E Kelley; Susan Sereika; Chester B Good; Said A Ibrahim; Joseph Conigliaro Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Wei Huang; Gordon FitzGerald; Robert J Goldberg; Joel Gore; Richard H McManus; Hamza Awad; Molly E Waring; Jeroan Allison; Jane S Saczynski; Catarina I Kiefe; Keith A A Fox; Frederick A Anderson; David D McManus Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Nakela L Cook; Denise E Bonds; Catarina I Kiefe; Jeptha P Curtis; Harlan M Krumholz; Nancy R Kressin; Eric D Peterson Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2013-03-12
Authors: Anna C Snavely; Nella Hendley; Jason P Stopyra; Kristin M Lenoir; Brian J Wells; David M Herrington; Brian C Hiestand; Chadwick D Miller; Simon A Mahler Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 4.749