Socioeconomic inequalities in quality of care and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome in the modern era of drug eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: The rapidly changing landscape of percutaneous coronary intervention provides a unique model for examining disparities over time. Previous studies have not examined socioeconomic inequalities in the current era of drug eluting stents (DES). METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed 835 070 hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project across all insurance types from 2008 to 2011, examining whether quality of care and outcomes for patients with ACS differed by income (based on zip code of residence) with adjustment for patient characteristics and clustering by hospital. We found that lower-income patients were less likely to receive an angiogram within 24 hours of a ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (69.5% for IQ1 versus 73.7% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.79 [0.68 to 0.91]) or within 48 hours of a Non-STEMI (47.6% for IQ1 versus 51.8% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.86 [0.75 to 0.99]). Lower income was associated with less use of a DES (64.7% for IQ1 versus 71.2% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.83 [0.74 to 0.93]). However, no differences were found for coronary artery bypass surgery. Among STEMI patients, lower-income patients also had slightly increased adjusted mortality rates (10.8% for IQ1 versus 9.4% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 1.17 [1.11 to 1.25]). After further adjusting for time to reperfusion among STEMI patients, mortality differences across income groups decreased. CONCLUSIONS: For the most well accepted procedural treatments for ACS, income inequalities have faded. However, such inequalities have persisted for DES use, a relatively expensive and until recently, controversial revascularization procedure. Differences in mortality are significantly associated with differences in time to primary PCI, suggesting an important target for understanding why these inequalities persist.

Standardized assessment of breast cancer surgical scars integrating the Vancouver Scar Scale, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and patients' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no standardized, comprehensive method to assess surgical scars after breast cancer surgery. This article evaluates the application of the Vancouver Scar Scale, in conjunction with patients' scar self-rating and scar-related pain, in a cohort of breast cancer patients. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected in 59 women with breast cancer. Scar assessment comprised: 1. objective rating by pairs of independent observers using the Vancouver Scar Scale; 2. patient's ratings of the scar's physical parameters and overall satisfaction; and 3. pain assessment using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. A total of 212 scar scores (59 pairs of breast/chest wall and 47 pairs of axillary scar scores) were generated by 13 observers: three physicians, five radiation therapists, and five nurses. Internal consistency was tested using Cronbach's alpha statistics. Interobserver reliability was evaluated with Spearman's rho and intraclass correlation coefficient computations. Convergent validity of the observer and patient ratings was examined with Spearman's correlation statistics. Linear regression analysis was performed to identify significant factors associated with Vancouver Scar Scale scores and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The Vancouver Scar Scale, patient self-rating scale, and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.79, 0.64, and 0.72 respectively). Interobserver reliability using the Vancouver Scar Scale was significant with Spearman's correlation coefficients of 0.53 for pliability, 0.47 for scar height, 0.49 for vascularity, 0.54 for pigmentation, and 0.66 for overall score (all p values < 0.001). Significant agreement between observer and patient ratings of scar pliability (p = 0.01) and color (p = 0.001) was demonstrated. Mild to moderate pain was reported by more than 40 percent of patients. Patient satisfaction was significantly associated with self-rating of scar pliability and pain, but not Vancouver Scar Scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: The Vancouver Scar Scale is a reliable and valid tool to objectively evaluate scars after breast cancer surgery. Evaluation of scar-related pain and patients' scar rating and satisfaction provide additional information relevant to scar assessment. This integrated approach is feasible in a busy clinical setting to advance care and research in scar management for breast cancer patients.