Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Advanced Practice Provider Versus Physician-Only Outpatient Follow-Up After Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Rymer, Jennifer A; Chen, Anita Y; Thomas, Laine; Stafford, Judith; Enriquez, Jonathan R; Goyal, Abhinav; Peterson, Eric D; Wang, Tracy Y.
Afiliação
  • Rymer JA; 1 Duke Clinical Research Institute Durham NC.
  • Chen AY; 1 Duke Clinical Research Institute Durham NC.
  • Thomas L; 1 Duke Clinical Research Institute Durham NC.
  • Stafford J; 1 Duke Clinical Research Institute Durham NC.
  • Enriquez JR; 2 University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine Kansas City MO.
  • Goyal A; 3 Emory University School of Medicine Atlanta GA.
  • Peterson ED; 1 Duke Clinical Research Institute Durham NC.
  • Wang TY; 1 Duke Clinical Research Institute Durham NC.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 7(17): e008481, 2018 09 04.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30371165
ABSTRACT
Background Physician shortages and reimbursement changes have led to greater use of advanced practice providers ( APP s). Prevalence of and outcomes associated with APP care following myocardial infarction are unknown. Methods and Results We examined outpatient cardiology or primary care visits within 90 days post-myocardial infarction among 29 477 Medicare-insured patients aged ≥65 years from 364 hospitals in Acute Coronary Treatment Intervention Outcomes Network Registry. We compared medication adherence, all-cause readmission risk, mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular events between patients seen by APP s versus physicians only. Overall, 11% of myocardial infarction patients were treated by an APP . Patients seen by APP s were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (37% versus 33%) and heart failure (20% versus 16%), be discharged to a nursing facility (21% versus 13%) and had more outpatient visits within 90 days post-discharge (median 6 versus 5, P<0.01 for all) than those seen by physicians only. Adherence to evidence-based medications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.08) and readmission risks (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.26) were similar between patients seen by APP s versus physicians only. Risks of 90-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.42) and major adverse cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.23) were also similar between patients seen by APP s versus physicians only. Conclusions APP s were likely used to provide more frequent monitoring of high-risk post- MI patients. Medication adherence, readmission risk, mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ substantially between patients seen by physician- APP teams than those seen by physicians only.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Assistentes Médicos / Assistência ao Convalescente / Médicos de Atenção Primária / Assistência Ambulatorial / Cardiologistas / Infarto do Miocárdio / Profissionais de Enfermagem Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: J Am Heart Assoc Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Assistentes Médicos / Assistência ao Convalescente / Médicos de Atenção Primária / Assistência Ambulatorial / Cardiologistas / Infarto do Miocárdio / Profissionais de Enfermagem Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: J Am Heart Assoc Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article