Comparison of Hospitalization Trends and Outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients With Versus Without Opioid Use Disorder.

Discrepancies in medical care are well known to adversely affect patients with opioid abuse disorders (OUD), including management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with OUD. We used the National Inpatient Sample was queried from January 2006 to September 2015 to identify all patients ≥18 years admitted with a primary diagnosis of AMI (weighted N = 13,030; unweighted N = 2,670) and concomitant OUD. Patients using other nonopiate illicit drugs were excluded. Propensity matching (1:1) yielded 2,253 well-matched pairs in which intergroup comparison of invasive revascularization strategies and cardiac outcomes were performed. The prevalence of OUD patients with AMI over the last decade has doubled, from 163 (2006) to 326 cases (2015) per 100,000 admissions for AMI. The OUD group underwent less cardiac catheterization (63.2% vs 72.2%; p <0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (37.0% vs 48.5%; p <0.001) and drug-eluting stent placement (32.3% vs 19.5%; p <0.001) compared with non-OUD. No differences in in-hospital mortality/cardiogenic shock were noted. Among subgroup of ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients (26.2% of overall cohort), the OUD patients were less likely to receive percutaneous coronary intervention (67.9% vs 75.5%; p = 0.002), drug-eluting stent (31.4% vs 47.9%; p <0.001) with a significantly higher mortality (7.4% vs 4.3%), and cardiogenic shock (11.7% vs 7.9%). No differences in the frequency of coronary bypass grafting were noted in AMI or its subgroups. In conclusion, OUD patients presenting with AMI receive less invasive treatment compared with those without OUD. OUD patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction have worse in-hospital outcomes with increased mortality and cardiogenic shock.

Comparison of the Frequency of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients With Renal Transplant Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) are established modalities of coronary revascularization. Choosing between the two requires taking into consideration not only disease severity, patient characteristics, and expected outcomes but also adverse effects. One such adverse effect is acute kidney injury (AKI), especially when considering coronary revascularization in patients with renal transplant (RT). We searched the National Inpatient Sample from 2008 to 2014 using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for patients with RT (V42.0) who underwent PCI (00.66, 36.06, and 36.07) and CABG (36.1×, 36.2, and 36.3×). We further identified patients with AKI (584.5, 584.6, 584.7, 584.8, and 584.9) and those on dialysis (39.95). The propensity score model/method was used to form matched cohorts for PCI and CABG. We compared the incidence of AKI and AKI requiring dialysis in CABG and PCI groups. We identified 1,871 patients who underwent PCI and 1,878 patients who underwent CABG after propensity score matching. We found the incidence of both AKI (22% vs 38%, odds ratio 2.20, 95% confidence interval 1.91 to 2.54, p <0.0001) and AKI requiring dialysis (1% vs 3%, odds ratio 2.50, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 4.19, p = 0.001) to be significantly higher in the CABG compared with the PCI cohort. In conclusion, the results of the study reflect the importance of accounting for the RT status before choosing between PCI and CABG for coronary revascularization.