BACKGROUND: The association between low socioeconomic status (SES) and high mortality from coronary heart disease is well-known. However, the role of SES in relation to the clinical outcome after primary percutaneous coronary intervention remains poorly understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 7385 patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Participants were divided into high-SES and low-SES groups according to income, education, and employment status. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) at maximum follow-up (mean, 3.7 years). Low-SES patients had more adverse baseline risk profiles than high-SES patients. The cumulative risk of major adverse cardiac events after maximum follow-up was higher among low-income patients and unemployed patients compared with their counterparts (income: hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.47-1.92; employment status: hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.46-2.10). After adjustment for patient characteristics, these differences were substantially attenuated (income: hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93-1.33; employment status: hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.03-1.56). Further adjustment for admission findings, procedure-related data, and medical treatment during follow-up did not significantly affect the associations. With education as the SES indicator, no between-group differences were observed in the risk of the composite end point. CONCLUSIONS: Even in a tax-financed healthcare system, low-SES patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention face a worse prognosis than high-SES patients. The poor outcome seems to be largely explained by differences in baseline patient characteristics. Employment status and income (but not education level) were associated with clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The association between low socioeconomic status (SES) and high mortality from coronary heart disease is well-known. However, the role of SES in relation to the clinical outcome after primary percutaneous coronary intervention remains poorly understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 7385 patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Participants were divided into high-SES and low-SES groups according to income, education, and employment status. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) at maximum follow-up (mean, 3.7 years). Low-SESpatients had more adverse baseline risk profiles than high-SES patients. The cumulative risk of major adverse cardiac events after maximum follow-up was higher among low-income patients and unemployed patients compared with their counterparts (income: hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.47-1.92; employment status: hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.46-2.10). After adjustment for patient characteristics, these differences were substantially attenuated (income: hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93-1.33; employment status: hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.03-1.56). Further adjustment for admission findings, procedure-related data, and medical treatment during follow-up did not significantly affect the associations. With education as the SES indicator, no between-group differences were observed in the risk of the composite end point. CONCLUSIONS: Even in a tax-financed healthcare system, low-SESpatients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention face a worse prognosis than high-SES patients. The poor outcome seems to be largely explained by differences in baseline patient characteristics. Employment status and income (but not education level) were associated with clinical outcomes.
Authors: Vivek T Kulkarni; Joseph S Ross; Yongfei Wang; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; John A Spertus; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Frederick A Masoudi; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2013-05-16
Authors: Ayal A Aizer; Ming-Hui Chen; Ellen P McCarthy; Mallika L Mendu; Sophia Koo; Tyler J Wilhite; Powell L Graham; Toni K Choueiri; Karen E Hoffman; Neil E Martin; Jim C Hu; Paul L Nguyen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-09-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Katharine Bailey; Andy Ryan; Sophia Apostolidou; Evangelia Fourkala; Matthew Burnell; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Jatinderpal Kalsi; Max Parmar; Ian Jacobs; Hynek Pikhart; Usha Menon Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Judith Kämpfer; Andriy Yagensky; Tomasz Zdrojewski; Stephan Windecker; Bernhard Meier; Mykhailo Pavelko; Iryna Sichkaruk; Piotr Kasprzyk; Marzin Gruchala; Mikael Giacomini; Lukas Räber; Hugo Saner Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 2.692