Andrew R Zullo1, Sadia Sharmin1,2, Yoojin Lee1, Lori A Daiello1, Nishant R Shah1,3, W John Boscardin4,5, David D Dore1,6, Sei J Lee4, Michael A Steinman4. 1. Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, School of Public Health, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 2. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 4. Division of Geriatrics, University of California, San Francisco and San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California. 5. Division of Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 6. Optum Epidemiology, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Secondary prevention medications are recommended for older adults after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but little is known about whether nursing home (NH) residents receive these medications. The objective was to evaluate new use of secondary prevention medications after AMI in NH residents who were previously nonusers and to evaluate what factors were associated with use. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort using linked national Minimum Data Set assessments; Online Survey, Certification and Reporting records; and Medicare claims. SETTING: U.S. NHs. PARTICIPANTS: National cohort of 11,192 NH residents aged 65 and older who were hospitalized for an AMI between May 2007 and March 2010, had no beta-blocker or statin use for 4 months or longer before the hospitalization, and survived 14 days or more after NH readmission. MEASUREMENTS: The outcome was the number of secondary prevention medications initiated within 30 days of NH readmission. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of residents had no secondary prevention medications initiated after AMI, 41% had 1 initiated, and 22% had 2 initiated. After covariate adjustment, fewer secondary prevention medications were used in older residents (proportional odds ratio (POR) = 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.40-0.57 for ≥95 vs 65-74); women (POR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.80-0.96);and those with a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order (POR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.83-0.98), functional impairment (dependent or totally dependent vs independent to limited assistance, POR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.69-0.86), and cognitive impairment (moderate to severe vs no impairment, POR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.70-0.89). CONCLUSION: More than one-third of older NH residents in the United States do not have any secondary prevention medications initiated after AMI, with fewer medications initiated in older residents; women; and those with, DNR orders, poor physical function, and cognitive impairment. A lack of evidence about the safety and effectiveness of secondary preventions medications in the NH population and unmeasured person-centered goals of care are plausible explanations for these findings.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Secondary prevention medications are recommended for older adults after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but little is known about whether nursing home (NH) residents receive these medications. The objective was to evaluate new use of secondary prevention medications after AMI in NH residents who were previously nonusers and to evaluate what factors were associated with use. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort using linked national Minimum Data Set assessments; Online Survey, Certification and Reporting records; and Medicare claims. SETTING: U.S. NHs. PARTICIPANTS: National cohort of 11,192 NH residents aged 65 and older who were hospitalized for an AMI between May 2007 and March 2010, had no beta-blocker or statin use for 4 months or longer before the hospitalization, and survived 14 days or more after NH readmission. MEASUREMENTS: The outcome was the number of secondary prevention medications initiated within 30 days of NH readmission. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of residents had no secondary prevention medications initiated after AMI, 41% had 1 initiated, and 22% had 2 initiated. After covariate adjustment, fewer secondary prevention medications were used in older residents (proportional odds ratio (POR) = 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.40-0.57 for ≥95 vs 65-74); women (POR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.80-0.96);and those with a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order (POR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.83-0.98), functional impairment (dependent or totally dependent vs independent to limited assistance, POR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.69-0.86), and cognitive impairment (moderate to severe vs no impairment, POR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.70-0.89). CONCLUSION: More than one-third of older NH residents in the United States do not have any secondary prevention medications initiated after AMI, with fewer medications initiated in older residents; women; and those with, DNR orders, poor physical function, and cognitive impairment. A lack of evidence about the safety and effectiveness of secondary preventions medications in the NH population and unmeasured person-centered goals of care are plausible explanations for these findings.
Authors: Jeffrey L Anderson; Cynthia D Adams; Elliott M Antman; Charles R Bridges; Robert M Califf; Donald E Casey; William E Chavey; Francis M Fesmire; Judith S Hochman; Thomas N Levin; A Michael Lincoff; Eric D Peterson; Pierre Theroux; Nanette Kass Wenger; R Scott Wright; Sidney C Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-03-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alberto Pilotto; Pietro Gallina; Francesco Panza; Massimiliano Copetti; Alberto Cella; Alfonso Cruz-Jentoft; Julia Daragjati; Luigi Ferrucci; Stefania Maggi; Francesco Mattace-Raso; Marc Paccalin; Maria Cristina Polidori; Eva Topinkova; Gianluca Trifirò; Anna-Karin Welmer; Timo Strandberg; Niccolò Marchionni Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Michael W Rich; Deborah A Chyun; Adam H Skolnick; Karen P Alexander; Daniel E Forman; Dalane W Kitzman; Mathew S Maurer; James B McClurken; Barbara M Resnick; Win K Shen; David L Tirschwell Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-04-11 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: F Lombardi; L Paoletti; B Carrieri; G Dell'Aquila; M Fedecostante; M Di Muzio; A Corsonello; F Lattanzio; A Cherubini Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Andrew R Zullo; Michelle Hersey; Yoojin Lee; Sadia Sharmin; Elliott Bosco; Lori A Daiello; Nishant R Shah; Vincent Mor; W John Boscardin; Christine M Berard-Collins; David D Dore; Michael A Steinman Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2018-07-22 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Andrew R Zullo; Matthew Olean; Sarah D Berry; Yoojin Lee; Jennifer Tjia; Michael A Steinman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Andrew R Zullo; Amanda Mogul; Katherine Corsi; Nishant R Shah; Sei J Lee; James L Rudolph; Wen-Chih Wu; Ruth Dapaah-Afriyie; Christine Berard-Collins; Michael A Steinman Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2019-04
Authors: Andrew R Zullo; Richard Ofori-Asenso; Marci Wood; Allison Zuern; Yoojin Lee; Wen-Chih Wu; James L Rudolph; Danny Liew; Michael A Steinman Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Andrew R Zullo; Melissa R Riester; Sebhat Erqou; Wen-Chih Wu; James L Rudolph; Michael A Steinman Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.923