Laura C Yasaitis1, Jun Guan1, Dennis T Ko1, Amitabh Chandra1, Therese A Stukel2. 1. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (Yasaitis), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; ICES Central (Guan, Ko, Stukel); Department of Medicine (Ko), Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Ko, Stukel), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; John F. Kennedy School of Government (Chandra), Harvard University; Harvard Business School (Chandra); National Bureau of Economics Research (Chandra), Cambridge, Mass.; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice (Stukel), Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. 2. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (Yasaitis), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; ICES Central (Guan, Ko, Stukel); Department of Medicine (Ko), Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Ko, Stukel), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; John F. Kennedy School of Government (Chandra), Harvard University; Harvard Business School (Chandra); National Bureau of Economics Research (Chandra), Cambridge, Mass.; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice (Stukel), Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH stukel@ices.on.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous work showed lower cardiac intervention rates for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Ontario than in the United States. We assessed whether Ontario's efforts to improve access to rapid percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AMI were associated with improved timeliness of care and whether this closed the gap between the 2 jurisdictions. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we followed adults aged 66-99 years in the US and Ontario for 30 days after admission for incident AMI between 2003 and 2013 using health administrative data from both countries. We calculated the proportion of patients who received cardiac catheterization, PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting on the day of and within 30 days of admission overall and according to AMI type (ST-segment elevation AMI [STEMI] v. non-STEMI) and risk group (low, medium or high predicted risk of 30-d mortality). RESULTS: We followed 414 216 patients in the US and 112 484 in Ontario. The large disparities in cardiac intervention rates observed in 2003 mostly disappeared over time. By 2013, the proportion of patients who received same-day PCI was only slightly higher in the US than in Ontario (22.3% v. 19.2%), whereas the converse was true for 30-day PCI (44.0% v. 41.3%). In 2013, patients with STEMI in the US and Ontario received PCI at nearly identical rates on the day of admission (66.3% v. 63.8%); however, more patients at high risk with STEMI in the US than in Ontario received PCI, both on the day of admission (55.5% v. 44.7%) and by 30 days (60.5% v. 55.0%). INTERPRETATION: Despite differences in resources and organization of delivery systems, by 2013, timely receipt of PCI by Ontario patients with AMI lagged only slightly behind that by US patients. A higher supply of PCI centres in the US may have facilitated earlier intervention among patients at high risk with STEMI. Copyright 2020, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
BACKGROUND: Previous work showed lower cardiac intervention rates for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Ontario than in the United States. We assessed whether Ontario's efforts to improve access to rapid percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AMI were associated with improved timeliness of care and whether this closed the gap between the 2 jurisdictions. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we followed adults aged 66-99 years in the US and Ontario for 30 days after admission for incident AMI between 2003 and 2013 using health administrative data from both countries. We calculated the proportion of patients who received cardiac catheterization, PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting on the day of and within 30 days of admission overall and according to AMI type (ST-segment elevation AMI [STEMI] v. non-STEMI) and risk group (low, medium or high predicted risk of 30-d mortality). RESULTS: We followed 414 216 patients in the US and 112 484 in Ontario. The large disparities in cardiac intervention rates observed in 2003 mostly disappeared over time. By 2013, the proportion of patients who received same-day PCI was only slightly higher in the US than in Ontario (22.3% v. 19.2%), whereas the converse was true for 30-day PCI (44.0% v. 41.3%). In 2013, patients with STEMI in the US and Ontario received PCI at nearly identical rates on the day of admission (66.3% v. 63.8%); however, more patients at high risk with STEMI in the US than in Ontario received PCI, both on the day of admission (55.5% v. 44.7%) and by 30 days (60.5% v. 55.0%). INTERPRETATION: Despite differences in resources and organization of delivery systems, by 2013, timely receipt of PCI by Ontario patients with AMI lagged only slightly behind that by US patients. A higher supply of PCI centres in the US may have facilitated earlier intervention among patients at high risk with STEMI. Copyright 2020, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
Authors: Dennis T Ko; Harlan M Krumholz; Yongfei Wang; JoAnne M Foody; Fredrick A Masoudi; Edward P Havranek; John J You; David A Alter; Therese A Stukel; Alice M Newman; Jack V Tu Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-12-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Dennis T Ko; Jack V Tu; Peter C Austin; Harindra C Wijeysundera; Zaza Samadashvili; Helen Guo; Warren J Cantor; Edward L Hannan Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Therese A Stukel; Elliott S Fisher; David A Alter; Astrid Guttmann; Dennis T Ko; Kinwah Fung; Walter P Wodchis; Nancy N Baxter; Craig C Earle; Douglas S Lee Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Padma Kaul; Paul W Armstrong; Wei-Ching Chang; C David Naylor; Christopher B Granger; Kerry L Lee; Eric D Peterson; Robert M Califf; Eric J Topol; Daniel B Mark Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-09-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Richard G Bach; Christopher P Cannon; William S Weintraub; Peter M DiBattiste; Laura A Demopoulos; H Vernon Anderson; Paul T DeLucca; Elizabeth M Mahoney; Sabina A Murphy; Eugene Braunwald Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-08-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Warren J Cantor; David Fitchett; Bjug Borgundvaag; John Ducas; Michael Heffernan; Eric A Cohen; Laurie J Morrison; Anatoly Langer; Vladimir Dzavik; Shamir R Mehta; Charles Lazzam; Brian Schwartz; Amparo Casanova; Shaun G Goodman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-06-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gregory C Pope; John Kautter; Randall P Ellis; Arlene S Ash; John Z Ayanian; Lisa I Lezzoni; Melvin J Ingber; Jesse M Levy; John Robst Journal: Health Care Financ Rev Date: 2004
Authors: Anne-Michelle Noone; Jennifer L Lund; Angela Mariotto; Kathleen Cronin; Timothy McNeel; Dennis Deapen; Joan L Warren Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Peter Cram; Mark E Cohen; Clifford Ko; Bruce E Landon; Bruce Hall; Timothy D Jackson Journal: World J Surg Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 3.352