Patterns of antidepressant therapy and clinical outcomes among ischaemic stroke survivors.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Depression is common after stroke and is often treated with antidepressant medications (AD). ADs have also been hypothesised to improve stroke recovery, although recent randomised trials were neutral. We investigated the patterns of in-hospital AD initiation after ischaemic stroke and association with clinical and readmission outcomes. METHODS: All Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 or older hospitalised for ischaemic stroke in participating Get With The Guidelines-Stroke hospitals between April and December 2014 were eligible for this analysis. Outcome measures included days alive and not in a healthcare institution (home time), all-cause mortality and readmission within 1-year postdischarge. Propensity score (PS)-adjusted logistic regression models were used to evaluate the associations between AD use and each outcome measure. We also compared outcomes in patients prescribed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) AD versus those prescribed non-SSRI ADs. RESULTS: Of 21 805 AD naïve patients included in this analysis, 1835 (8.4%) were started on an AD at discharge. Patients started on an AD had higher rates of depression and prior ischaemic stroke, presented with higher admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score and were less likely to be discharged home. Similarly, patients started on an SSRI had lower rates of discharge to home. Adjusting for stroke severity, patients started on an AD had worse all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, major adverse cardiac events, readmission for depression and decreased home-time. However, AD use was also associated with an increased risk for the sepsis, a falsification endpoint, suggesting the presence of residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ischaemic stroke initiated on AD therapy are at increased risk of poor clinical outcomes and readmission even after PS adjustment, suggesting that poststroke depression requiring medication is a poor prognostic sign. Further research is needed to explore the reasons why depression is associated with worse outcome, and whether AD treatment modifies this risk or not.

Disease Burden Following Non-Cardioembolic Minor Ischemic Stroke or High-Risk TIA: A GWTG-Stroke Study.

BACKGROUND: Limited real-world data are available on outcomes following non-cardioembolic minor ischemic stroke (IS) or high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA), particularly in the United States (US). We examined outcomes and Medicare payments following any severity IS or TIA as well as the subgroup with minor IS or high-risk TIA. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries >65 years were identified using US nationwide Get with the Guidelines (GWTG)-Stroke Registry linked to Medicare claims data. The cohort consisted of patients enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service plan, hospitalized with non-cardioembolic IS or TIA between 2011 and 2014, segmenting a subgroup with minor IS (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] ≤5) or high-risk TIA (ABCD2-score ≥6) compatible with the THALES clinical trial population. Outcomes included functional status at discharge, clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, and hemorrhagic stroke, individually and as a composite), hospitalizations, and population average inpatient Medicare payments following non-cardioembolic IS or TIA. RESULTS: The THALES-compatible cohort included 62,518 patients from 1471 hospitals. At discharge, 37.0% were unable to ambulate without assistance, and 96.2% were prescribed antiplatelet therapy. Cumulative incidences at 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year for the composite outcome were 3.7%, 7.6%, and 17.2% and 2.4%, 4.0%, and 7.3% for subsequent stroke. The mean Medicare payment for the index hospitalization was $7951. The cumulative all-cause inpatient Medicare spending per patient (with or without any subsequent admission) at 30 days and 1 year from discharge was $1451 and $8105, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of illness for minor IS/high-risk TIA patients indicates an important unmet need. Improved therapeutic options may offer a significant impact on both patient outcomes and Medicare spending.

Quality of Care and Outcomes Among Medicare Advantage vs Fee-for-Service Medicare Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA), a private insurance plan option, now covers one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries. Although patients with cardiovascular disease enrolled in MA have been reported to receive higher quality of care in the ambulatory setting than patients enrolled in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, it is unclear whether MA is associated with higher quality in patients hospitalized with heart failure, or alternatively, if incentives to reduce utilization under MA plans may be associated with worse care. Objective: To determine whether there are differences in quality of care received and in-hospital outcomes among patients enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational, retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with heart failure in hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. Exposures: Medicare Advantage enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: In-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, length of stay, and 4 heart failure achievement measures. Results: Of 262 626 patients hospitalized with heart failure, 93 549 (35.6%) were enrolled in MA and 169 077 (64.4%) in FFS Medicare. The median (interquartile range) age was 78 (70-85) years for patients enrolled in MA and 78 (69-86) years for patients enrolled in FFS Medicare. Standard mean differences in age, sex, prevalence of comorbidities, or objective measures on admission, including vital signs and laboratory values, were less than 10%. After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in receipt of evidence-based ß-blockers when indicated; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors at discharge; measurement of left ventricular function; and postdischarge appointments by Medicare insurance type. Patients enrolled in MA, however, had higher odds of being discharged directly home (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.19; P < .001) relative to patients enrolled in FFS Medicare and lower odds of being discharged within 4 days (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = .04). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients with MA and patients with FFS Medicare (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .42). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients hospitalized with heart failure, no observable benefit was noted in quality of care or in-hospital mortality between those enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare, except lower use of post-acute care facilities. As MA continues to grow, it will be important to ensure that participating private plans provide an added value to the patients they cover to justify the higher administrative costs compared with traditional FFS Medicare.

Home Health Care Use and Post-Discharge Outcomes After Heart Failure Hospitalizations.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries who were hospitalized for heart failure (HF) and then discharged home who received home health care (HHC) to the characteristics of those who did not, and examined associations among HHC and readmission and mortality rates. BACKGROUND: After hospitalization for HF, some patients receive HHC. However, the use of HHC over time, the factors associated with its use, and the post-discharge outcomes after receiving it are not well studied. METHODS: This study used Get With The Guidelines-HF data, merged with Medicare fee-for-service claims. Propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the associations between HHC and post-discharge outcomes. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2015, 95,531 patients were admitted for HF, and 32,697 (34.2%) received HHC after discharge. The rate of HHC increased over time from 31.4% to 36.1% (p < 0.001). HHC recipients were older, more likely to be female, and had more comorbidities. HHC was associated with a higher risk of all-cause 30-day readmission (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20 to 1.30), HF-specific 30-day readmission (HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.28), all-cause 90-day readmission (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.26), HF-specific 90-day readmission (HR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.22), and all-cause 30-and 90-day mortality, respectively (HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.56 to 1.86) and HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.41 to 1.57) compared to those who did not receive HHC. CONCLUSIONS: Use of HHC after HF hospitalization increased among Medicare beneficiaries. HHC recipients were older and sicker than non-HHC recipients. Although HHC was associated with a higher risk of readmissions and mortality, this finding should be interpreted cautiously, given the presence of unmeasured variables that could affect receipt of HHC. Research is needed to determine whether the results reflect appropriate health care use.

Antiplatelet patterns and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation not prescribed an anticoagulant after stroke.

BACKGROUND: To determine association of discharge antiplatelet therapy prescription with 1-year outcomes among patients with AF admitted with acute ischemic stroke and discharged without oral anticoagulation. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study from the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry, we identified all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 65 years or older with AF or atrial flutter admitted with acute ischemic stroke and discharged without oral anticoagulation from April 2003 through December 2014, and we determined association of discharge antiplatelet therapy prescription with 1-year outcomes using Medicare claims data. Primary outcomes were 1-year mortality and composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular/neurologic/bleeding events (MACNBE). RESULTS: Of 64,228 subjects (median [interquartile range] age, 84 [78-89] years; 62.5% female), 54,621 (85.0%) were discharged with antiplatelet therapy, and 9607 (15.0%) were discharged with no antithrombotic therapy. The unadjusted rates of 1-year mortality were lower among patients receiving antiplatelet therapy (37.3%) than among those receiving no antithrombotic therapy (48.1%); unadjusted rates of MACNBE were lower for those receiving antiplatelet therapy (45.5%) compared with those receiving no antithrombotic therapy (55.2%). After adjusting for potential confounders, antiplatelet therapy prescription was associated with reduced 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.66, P < .001) and MACNBE (adjusted HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.67-0.71, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries with AF admitted for acute ischemic stroke but not discharged on oral anticoagulant therapy, antiplatelet therapy, compared with no antithrombotic therapy, was associated with reduced 1-year mortality and MACNBE.

Regional Variation in 30-Day Ischemic Stroke Outcomes for Medicare Beneficiaries Treated in Get With The Guidelines-Stroke Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: We explored regional variation in 30-day ischemic stroke mortality and readmission rates and the extent to which regional differences in patients, hospitals, healthcare resources, and a quality of care composite care measure explain the observed variation. METHODS AND RESULTS: This ecological analysis aggregated patient and hospital characteristics from the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry (2007-2011), healthcare resource data from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care (2006), and Medicare fee-for-service data on 30-day mortality and readmissions (2007-2011) to the hospital referral region (HRR) level. We used linear regression to estimate adjusted HRR-level 30-day outcomes, to identify HRR-level characteristics associated with 30-day outcomes, and to describe which characteristics explained variation in 30-day outcomes. The mean adjusted HRR-level 30-day mortality and readmission rates were 10.3% (SD=1.1%) and 13.1% (SD=1.1%), respectively; a modest, negative correlation (r=-0.17; P=0.003) was found between one another. Demographics explained more variation in readmissions than mortality (25% versus 6%), but after accounting for demographics, comorbidities accounted for more variation in mortality compared with readmission rates (17% versus 7%). The combination of hospital characteristics and healthcare resources explained 11% and 16% of the variance in mortality and readmission rates, beyond patient characteristics. Most of the regional variation in mortality (65%) and readmission (50%) rates remained unexplained. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-day mortality and readmission rates vary substantially across HRRs and exhibit an inverse relationship. While regional variation in 30-day outcomes were explained by patient and hospital factors differently, much of the regional variation in both outcomes remains unexplained.

Use of stress testing and diagnostic catheterization after coronary stenting: association of site-level patterns with patient characteristics and outcomes in 247,052 Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine diagnostic testing patterns after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Little is known about patterns of diagnostic testing after PCI in the United States or the relationship of these patterns to clinical outcomes. METHODS: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services inpatient and outpatient claims were linked to National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry data from 2005 to 2007. Hospital quartiles of the cumulative incidence of diagnostic testing use within 12 and 24 months after PCI were compared for patient characteristics, repeat revascularization, acute myocardial infarction, and death. RESULTS: A total of 247,052 patients underwent PCI at 656 institutions. Patient and site characteristics were similar across quartiles of testing use. There was a 9% and 20% higher adjusted risk for repeat revascularization in quartiles 3 and 4 (highest testing rate), respectively, compared with quartile 1 (lowest testing rate) (p = 0.020 and p < 0.0001, respectively). The adjusted risk for death or acute myocardial infarction did not differ among quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: Although patient characteristics were largely independent of rates of post-PCI testing, higher testing rates were not associated with lower risk for myocardial infarction or death, but repeat revascularization was significantly higher at these sites. Additional studies should examine whether increased testing is a marker for improved quality of post-PCI care or simply increased health care utilization.

Patterns of stress testing and diagnostic catheterization after coronary stenting in 250 350 medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Patterns of noninvasive stress test (ST) and invasive coronary angiography (CA) utilization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well described in older populations. METHODS AND RESULTS: We linked National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry data with longitudinal Medicare claims data for 250 350 patients undergoing PCI from 2005 to 2007 and described subsequent testing and outcomes. Between 60 days post-PCI and end of follow-up (median 24 months), 49% (n=122 894) received ST first, 10% (n=25 512) underwent invasive CA first, and 41% (n=101 944) had no testing. Several clinical risk factors at time of index PCI were associated with decreased likelihood of downstream testing (ST or CA, P<0.05 for all), including older age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.784 per 10-year increase), male sex (HR 0.946), heart failure (HR 0.925), diabetes mellitus (HR 0.954), smoking (HR 0.804), and renal failure (HR 0.880). Fifteen percent of patients with ST first proceeded to subsequent CA within 90 days of testing (n=18 472/122 894) [corrected]; of these, 48% (n=8831) underwent revascularization within 90 days, compared with 53% (n=13 316) of CA first patients (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this descriptive analysis, ST and invasive CA were common in older patients after PCI. Paradoxically, patients with higher risk features at baseline were less likely to undergo post-PCI testing. The revascularization yield was low on patients referred for ST after PCI, with only 7% [corrected] undergoing revascularization within 90 days.

Downstream testing and subsequent procedures after coronary computed tomographic angiography following coronary stenting in patients ≥65 years of age.

Limited data are available on the use of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) in patients who have received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To evaluate patterns of cardiac testing including CCTA after PCI, we created a retrospective observational dataset linking National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry baseline data with longitudinal inpatient and outpatient Medicare claims data for patients who received coronary stenting from November 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007. In 192,009 patients with PCI (median age 74 years), the first test after coronary stenting was CCTA for 553 (0.3%), stress testing for 89,900 (46.8%), and coronary angiography for 22,308 (11.6%); 79,248 (41.3%) had no further testing. Patients referred to CCTA first generally had similar or lower baseline risk than those referred for stress testing or catheterization first. Compared to patients with stress testing first after PCI, patients who underwent CCTA first had higher unadjusted rates of subsequent noninvasive testing (10% vs 3%), catheterization (26% vs 15%), and revascularization (13% vs 8%) within 90 days of initial testing after PCI (p <0.0001 for all comparisons). In conclusion, despite similar or lesser-risk profiles, patients initially evaluated with CCTA after PCI had more downstream testing and revascularization than patients initially evaluated with stress testing. It is unclear whether these differences derive from patient selection, performance of CCTA compared to other testing strategies, or the association of early adoption of CCTA with distinct patterns of care.

Impact of a statewide ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction regionalization program on treatment times for women, minorities, and the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have demonstrated differences in time to reperfusion for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in women, minorities, and the elderly, relative to their counterparts. Regionalization has been shown to improve overall STEMI treatment times, but its impact on care differences among these important patient subgroups is unknown. The objective of this analysis was to assess the impact of a statewide system of STEMI care (The Reperfusion of Acute Myocardial Infarction in North Carolina Emergency Departments) on treatment times according to patient sex, race, and age. METHODS AND RESULTS: STEMI treatment times were determined before (July 2005 to September 2005) and after (January 2007 to March 2007) a year-long implementation of coordinated regional treatment protocols. Times in the pre- and postintervention periods were compared by mixed-effects models. A total of 2063 STEMI patients were analyzed: 1140 at percutaneous coronary intervention hospitals and 923 at non-percutaneous coronary intervention hospitals. The Reperfusion of Acute Myocardial Infarction in North Carolina Emergency Departments was associated with significant improvements in treatment times in women and the elderly, including door-to-ECG, door-to-device, door-in-door-out, and door-to-needle times (all P<0.05). Temporal improvements in treatment times at percutaneous coronary intervention hospitals were not significantly different in blacks than in whites. There was a reduction in baseline treatment disparities in door-to-ECG times in women versus men (4.4-minute reduction in difference; 95% CI, -8.1 to -0.4; P=0.03). After Reperfusion of Acute Myocardial Infarction in North Carolina Emergency Departments, an age-treatment time gap persisted in the elderly, relative to younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: A statewide STEMI regionalization program was associated with comparable improvement in treatment times for female, black, and elderly patients compared with middle-aged, white male patients. Nevertheless, there remain opportunities to further narrow treatment differences, particularly among the elderly.

Potential unintended financial consequences of pay-for-performance on the quality of care for minority patients.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether pay-for-performance (PFP) increases existing racial care disparities. BACKGROUND: Medicare's PFP program provides financial rewards to hospitals whose care performance ranks in the highest quintile relative to peers and reduces funding to hospitals that rank in the lowest quintile. Pay-for-performance is designed to improve care but may disproportionately penalize hospitals caring for large minority populations. METHODS: Using Medicare data, 3449 US hospitals were ranked by performance on PFP process measures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), and heart failure (HF). These rankings were compared with the percentage of African American (AA) patients in a center. We determined the eligibility for financial bonus (highest quintile ranking) or penalty (lowest quintile) among centers treating large AA populations (> or = 20%) versus not after adjusting for hospital facility (catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention, surgery), academic status, number of hospital beds, location, patient volume, and region. RESULTS: The percentage of AA patients treated by a center was inversely associated with performance for AMI and CAP (P < .01) but not HF (P = .06). Relative to hospitals with < 20% AA, those with > or = 20% AA were less likely eligible for financial bonuses and more likely to face penalties: for AMI, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.7 (95% CI 0.5-1.0) and 1.8 (1.4-2.4), respectively; for CAP, OR 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.6) and 2.3 (1.8-2.9), respectively; for HF, OR 1.0 (95% CI 0.7-1.2) and 1.2 (0.9-1.5), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with large minority populations may be at financial risk under PFP. Thus, PFP may worsen existing racial care disparities.

Pay for performance, quality of care, and outcomes in acute myocardial infarction.

CONTEXT: Pay for performance has been promoted as a tool for improving quality of care. In 2003, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) launched the largest pay-for-performance pilot project to date in the United States, including indicators for acute myocardial infarction. OBJECTIVE: To determine if pay for performance was associated with either improved processes of care and outcomes or unintended consequences for acute myocardial infarction at hospitals participating in the CMS pilot project. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An observational, patient-level analysis of 105,383 patients with acute non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction enrolled in the Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guidelines (CRUSADE) national quality-improvement initiative. Patients were treated between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2006, at 54 hospitals in the CMS program and 446 control hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The differences in the use of ACC/AHA class I guideline recommended therapies and in-hospital mortality between pay for performance and control hospitals. RESULTS: Among treatments subject to financial incentives, there was a slightly higher rate of improvement for 2 of 6 targeted therapies at pay-for-performance vs control hospitals (odds ratio [OR] comparing adherence scores from 2003 through 2006 at half-year intervals for aspirin at discharge, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.46 vs OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.12-1.21; P = .04) and for smoking cessation counseling (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.29-1.73 vs OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.35; P = .05). There was no significant difference in a composite measure of the 6 CMS rewarded therapies between the 2 hospital groups (change in odds per half-year period of receiving CMS therapies: OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.15-1.30 vs OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.14-1.20; P = .16). For composite measures of acute myocardial infarction treatments not subject to incentives, rates of improvement were not significantly different (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.14 vs OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09; P = .49). Overall, there was no evidence that improvements in in-hospital mortality were incrementally greater at pay-for-performance sites (change in odds of in-hospital death per half-year period, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99 vs 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitals participating in a voluntary quality-improvement initiative, the pay-for-performance program was not associated with a significant incremental improvement in quality of care or outcomes for acute myocardial infarction. Conversely, we did not find evidence that pay for performance had an adverse association with improvement in processes of care that were not subject to financial incentives. Additional studies of pay for performance are needed to determine its optimal role in quality-improvement initiatives.

Is early too early? Effect of shorter stays after bypass surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative stays after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) decreased substantially in the 1990s. Although shorter stays offer clinical benefits, premature discharge could increase adverse events and offset initial savings. This study examined the effect of early discharge after CABG on readmission/death and cost within 60 days of discharge home. Variability in hospitals' tendencies for early discharge and adverse outcomes was also explored. METHODS: Analyses were based on clinical and claims data for 55,889 New York CABG patients discharged home 1995 to 1998. Early discharge was defined as a postoperative stay below the 15th percentile for patients with similar risk. The likelihood of early discharge and its effect on readmission/death were examined using hierarchical logistic regression, accounting for patient risk and within-hospital correlation. The correlation between early discharge and adverse outcomes at the hospital level was assessed. The effect of early discharge on subsequent inpatient, outpatient, skilled nursing, and home health costs was examined in the Medicare subset. RESULTS: Overall, 17% of patients were discharged early, with increasing prevalence over time. The tendency to discharge early varied widely among hospitals (2% to 42% of patients). We found no association between hospitals' tendencies for early discharge and adverse outcomes. Lower postdischarge costs among patients discharged early (mean = 3,491 dollars versus 5,246 dollars for typical stays) resulted in average cumulative savings of 6,309 dollars. CONCLUSIONS: Patients selected for earlier discharge after CABG did not have increased adverse event rates or higher costs. Variation among hospitals in early discharge suggests that more efficient patient management could be achieved at some hospitals.

Clinical characteristics, process of care, and outcomes of Hispanic patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE).

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the management of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS) in Hispanic patients, the largest and fastest-growing minority in the United States, are scarce. METHODS: We sought to describe the clinical characteristics, process of care, and outcomes of Hispanics presenting with NSTE ACS at US hospitals. We compared baseline characteristics, resource use, and inhospital mortality among 3936 Hispanics and 90280 non-Hispanic whites with NSTE ACS from the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative. RESULTS: The regional distribution of Hispanics in CRUSADE paralleled that in the US Census. Hispanics were younger (65 vs 70 years, P < .0001) and had less hyperlipidemia (45.4% vs 49.0%, P < .0001) but were more likely to be hypertensive (72.2% vs 67.9%, P < .0001) and diabetic (46.5% vs 30.9%, P < .0001). Hispanics were also more likely to be uninsured (12.5% vs 5.1%, P < .001). During hospitalization, Hispanics were more often managed conservatively, undergoing stress tests more frequently (13.0% vs 10.1%, P < .0001), with less use of cardiac catheterization within 48 hours (48.7% vs 55.5%, P < .0001) or percutaneous coronary intervention (39.6% vs 46.4%, P < .0001) at any time. Hispanics received similar discharge treatments but were less frequently referred for cardiac rehabilitation (38.5% vs 49.2%, P < .0001). Adjusted inhospital mortality was similar in both groups (odds ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.72-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although hispanics have a different risk factor profile and are treated less aggressively during hospitalization when they present with NSTE ACS, these treatment differences do not appear to affect inhospital outcomes. Further research is warranted to explore the long-term consequences of these findings.