Insurance status and the treatment of myocardial infarction at academic centers.

UNLABELLED: Numerous studies have documented treatment disparities in patients with acute coronary syndromes based on race and gender. Other causes for treatment disparities may exist. OBJECTIVES: To determine if insurance status affects quality of care in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) presenting to academic health centers. METHODS: The Internet Tracking Registry for Acute Coronary Syndromes (i*trACS), a prospective multicenter registry of patients with chest pain presenting to the emergency department who receive an electrocardiogram, was used as the database (N = 17,737). A subset of patients who were diagnosed as having AMI were selected from the database (n = 936). Patients were classified as having either ST-segment elevation MI (n = 178) or non-ST-segment elevation MI (n = 758). Insurance status, age, race, and gender were extracted as predictor variables. The influence of predictor variables on treatment modality was investigated using logistic regression, adjusted for clustering within sites. RESULTS: The odds of a self-pay patient with ST-segment elevation MI receiving fibrinolytics were 3.23 (95% CI = 1.56 to 6.69) times higher than for other patients. Patients with Medicare coverage were less likely to receive fibrinolytics (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.65) and tended to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention less often (OR 0.60, 95% CI = 0.36 to 1.01). The odds of a privately insured patient's receiving coronary artery bypass grafting (OR 2.76, 95% CI = 1.62 to 4.72) or percutaneous coronary intervention (OR 1.47, 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.11) were higher than for other patients. CONCLUSIONS: Insurance coverage appears to affect treatment in patients with AMI, with self-pay patients more likely to receive less-expensive therapies and insured patients more likely to receive invasive treatments.

The impact of race on the acute management of chest pain.

OBJECTIVES: African Americans with acute coronary syndromes receive cardiac catheterization less frequently than whites. The objective was to determine if such disparities extend to acute evaluation and non interventional treatment. METHODS: Data on adults with chest pain (N = 7,935) presenting to eight emergency departments (EDs) were evaluated from the Internet Tracking Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes. Groups were selected from final ED diagnosis: 1) acute myocardial infarction (AMI), n = 400; 2) unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI), n = 1,153; and 3) nonacute coronary syndrome chest pain (non-ACS CP), n = 6,382. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for AMI and UA/NSTEMI were used to evaluate racial disparities with logistic regression models. Odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for age, gender, guideline publication, and insurance status. Non-ACS CP patients were assessed by comparing electrocardiographic (ECG)/laboratory evaluation, medical treatment, admission rates, and invasive and noninvasive testing for coronary artery disease (CAD). RESULTS: African Americans with UA/NSTEMI received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors less often than whites (OR, 0.41; 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.91). African Americans with non-ACS CP underwent ECG/laboratory evaluation, medical treatment, and invasive and noninvasive testing for CAD less often than whites (p < 0.05). Other nonwhites with non-ACS CP were admitted and received invasive testing for CAD less often than whites (p < 0.01). African Americans and other nonwhites with AMI underwent catheterization less frequently than whites (OR, 0.45; 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.71 and OR, 0.40; 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.92, respectively). A similar disparity in catheterization was noted in UA/NSTEMI therapy (OR, 0.53; 95% CI = 0.40 to 0.68 and OR, 0.68; 95% CI = 0.47 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Racial disparities in acute chest pain management extend beyond cardiac catheterization. Poor compliance with recommended treatments for ACS may be an explanation.