Usual source of care and outcomes following acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The quality of the relationship between a patient and their usual source of care may impact outcomes, especially after an acute clinical event requiring regular follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the presence and strength of a usual source of care with mortality and readmission after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). DESIGN: Prospective Registry Evaluating Myocardial Infarction: Event and Recovery (PREMIER), an observational, 19-center study. PATIENTS: AMI patients discharged between January 2003 and June 2004. MAIN MEASURES: The strength of the usual source of care was categorized as none, weak, or strong based upon the duration and familiarity of the relationship. Main outcome measures were readmissions and mortality at 6 months and 12 months post-AMI, examined in multivariable analysis adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics, access and barriers to care, financial status, baseline risk factors, and AMI severity. KEY RESULTS: Among 2,454 AMI patients, 441 (18.0 %) reported no usual source of care, whereas 247 (10.0 %) and 1,766 (72.0 %) reported weak and strong usual sources of care, respectively. When compared with a strong usual source of care, adults with no usual source of care had higher 6-month mortality rates [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 3.15, 95 % CI, 1.79-5.52; p < 0.001] and 12-month mortality rates (aHR = 1.92, 95 % CI, 1.19-3.12; p = 0.01); adults with a weak usual source of care trended toward higher mortality at 6 months (aHR = 1.95, 95 % CI, 0.98-3.88; p = 0.06), but not 12 months (p = 0.23). We found no association between the usual source of care and readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with no or weak usual sources of care have an increased risk for mortality following AMI, but not for readmission.

Coronary artery stents: advances in technology.

The introduction of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the late 1970s revolutionized the management of stable and unstable coronary artery disease, providing an effective, quick, safe, and increasingly widely available method for coronary revascularization for many patients. Rapid development in this field led to the introduction of a number of new technologies, including intracoronary stents that have resulted in improved efficacy and long-term safety. In this manuscript we review the experience with the 2 major available classes of stents (bare metal [BMS], drug-eluting [DES]) and describe the delivery systems for these stents. An evidence review of the large trial data comparing balloon angioplasty, BMS, and DES demonstrates the incremental advances over time, with the latest generation of DES achieving the lowest rates of restenosis, stent thrombosis, and recurrent myocardial infarction. In addition, we provide an overview of the latest developments in stent technology, including the introduction of bioresorbable stents and new stent delivery systems. These latest advances are hoped to further improve outcomes while reducing costs due to a reduction in the need for future procedures and hospitalizations due to recurrent coronary disease.