RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There has been an exponential increase in the demand for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Our goal was to examine trends in TAVR capacity and wait-times across Canada. METHODS: All TAVR cases were identified from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2017. Wait-time was defined as the duration in days from the initial referral to the TAVR procedure. TAVR capacity was defined as the number of TAVR procedures per million population/province/fiscal year. We performed multivariable multilevel Cox proportional hazards modelling of the time to TAVR as the dependant variable and the effect of provinces as random effects. We quantified the variation in wait-times among provinces using the median hazard ratio. RESULTS: We identified a total of 4906 TAVR procedures across 9 provinces. Despite a year over year increase in overall capacity, there was a greater than 3-fold difference in capacity between provinces. Crude median wait-times increased over time in all provinces, with marked variation from 71.5 days in Newfoundland to 190.5 and 203 days in Manitoba and Alberta, respectively. This suggests increasing demand outpaced the growth in capacity. We found a median hazard ratio of 1.62, indicating that in half of the possible pairwise comparisons, the time to TAVR for identical patients was at least 62% longer between different provinces. CONCLUSION: We found substantial geographic inequity in TAVR access. This calls for policy makers, clinicians, and administrators across Canada to address this inequity through revaluation of provincial funding mechanisms, as well as implementation of efficient care pathways.
Assuntos
Estenose da Valva Aórtica , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde , Tempo para o Tratamento , Substituição da Valva Aórtica Transcateter , Listas de Espera , Idoso , Valva Aórtica/cirurgia , Estenose da Valva Aórtica/diagnóstico , Estenose da Valva Aórtica/epidemiologia , Estenose da Valva Aórtica/cirurgia , Canadá/epidemiologia , Feminino , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/normas , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Necessidades e Demandas de Serviços de Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Sistema de Registros/estatística & dados numéricos , Fatores de Risco , Tempo para o Tratamento/organização & administração , Tempo para o Tratamento/normas , Tempo para o Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Substituição da Valva Aórtica Transcateter/métodos , Substituição da Valva Aórtica Transcateter/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated patients at tertiary [both percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) capable] and primary hospitals in the EARLY-ACS trial. BACKGROUND: Early invasive management is recommended for high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. METHODS: We evaluated outcomes in 9,204 patients presenting to: tertiary sites, primary sites with transfer to tertiary sites ("transferred") and those who remained at primary sites ("non-transfer"). RESULTS: There were 348 tertiary (n = 7,455 patients) and 89 primary hospitals [n = 1,749 patients (729 transferred; 1,020 non-transfer)]. Significant delays occurred in time from symptom onset to angiography (49 hr), PCI (53h), and CABG (178 hr) for transferred patients (P < 0.001). Non-transfer patients had less 30-day death/myocardial infarction [9.4% vs. 11.7% (tertiary); adjusted odds ratio (OR): 0.78 (0.62-0.97), P = 0.026]; transferred (14.0%) and tertiary patients were similar [adjusted OR: 1.23 (0.98-1.53), P = 0.074]. Non-transfer patients had lower 1-year mortality [4.3% vs. 6.3% (tertiary); adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.64 (0.47-0.87), P = 0.005]: there was no difference between transferred and tertiary patients [5.2% vs. 6.3%; adjusted HR: 0.80 (0.58-1.12), P = 0.202]. Despite similar rates of catheterization, GUSTO severe/moderate bleeding within 120 hr was less in non-transfer [3.1% vs. 6.7% (tertiary); adjusted OR: 0.47 (0.32-0.68), P < 0.001], whereas transferred (6.1%) and tertiary patients were similar [adjusted OR: 0.94 (0.68-1.30), P = 0.693]. There was no difference in non-CABG bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Timely angiography and revascularization were often not achieved in transferred patients. Non-transferred patients presenting to primary sites had the lowest event rates and the best long-term survival.