Comparison of Inappropriate Shocks and Other Health Outcomes Between Single- and Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Results From the Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: In US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual-chamber devices. The superiority of dual-chamber over single-chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single- and dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified patients receiving a single- or dual-chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all-cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital-level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single-chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual-chamber device. In a propensity-weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.38 [P=0.65]), all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.21 [P=0.76]), heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.21 [P=0.59]), or death (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.53 [P=0.17]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual-chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single-chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual-chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks.

Where You Live Matters: Quality and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Schizophrenia Care in Four State Medicaid Programs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether (a) quality in schizophrenia care varies by race/ethnicity and over time and (b) these patterns differ across counties within states. DATA SOURCES: Medicaid claims data from California, Florida, New York, and North Carolina during 2002-2008. STUDY DESIGN: We studied black, Latino, and white Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia. Hierarchical regression models, by state, quantified person and county effects of race/ethnicity and year on a composite quality measure, adjusting for person-level characteristics. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Overall, our cohort included 164,014 person-years (41-61 percent non-whites), corresponding to 98,400 beneficiaries. Relative to whites, quality was lower for blacks in every state and also lower for Latinos except in North Carolina. Temporal improvements were observed in California and North Carolina only. Within each state, counties differed in quality and disparities. Between-county variation in the black disparity was larger than between-county variation in the Latino disparity in California, and smaller in North Carolina; Latino disparities did not vary by county in Florida. In every state, counties differed in annual changes in quality; by 2008, no county had narrowed the initial disparities. CONCLUSIONS: For Medicaid beneficiaries living in the same state, quality and disparities in schizophrenia care are influenced by county of residence for reasons beyond patients' characteristics.

Transfer rates from nonprocedure hospitals after initial admission and outcomes among elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction.

IMPORTANCE: It is unknown whether hospital transfer rates for patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to nonprocedure hospitals (facilities that do not provide catheterization) vary and whether these rates further influence revascularization rates, length of stay, and mortality. OBJECTIVES: To examine hospital differences in transfer rates for elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction across nonprocedure hospitals and to determine whether these rates are associated with revascularization rates, length of stay, and mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used Medicare claims data from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2008, to assess transfer rates in nonprocedure hospitals, stratified according to transfer rates as low (≤ 20%), mid-low (>20%-30%), mid-high (>30%-40%), or high (>40%). Data were analyzed for 55,962 Medicare fee-for-service patients admitted to 901 nonprocedure US hospitals with more than 25 admissions per year for acute myocardial infarction. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We compared rates of catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery during hospitalization and within 60 days, as well as hospital total length of stay, across groups. We measured risk-standardized mortality rates at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS The median transfer rate was 29.4% (interquartile range [25th-75th percentile], 21.8%-37.8%). Higher transfer rates were associated with higher rates of catheterization (P < .001), percutaneous coronary intervention (P < .001), and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (P < .001). Median length of stay was not meaningfully different across the groups. There was no meaningful evidence of associations between transfer rates and risk-standardized mortality at 30 days (mean [SD], 22.3% [2.6%], 22.1% [2.3%], 22.3% [2.4%], and 21.7% [2.1%], respectively; P = .054) or 1 year (43.9% [2.3%], 43.6% [2.2%], 43.5% [2.4%], and 42.8% [2.2%], respectively; P < .001) for low, mid-low, mid-high, and high transfer groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Nonprocedure hospitals vary substantially in their use of the transfer process for elderly patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction. High-transfer hospitals had greater use of invasive cardiac procedures after admission compared with low-transfer hospitals. However, higher transfer rates were not associated with a significantly lower risk-standardized mortality rate at 30 days. Moreover, at 1 year there was only a 1.1% difference (42.8% vs 43.9%) between hospitals with higher and lower transfer rates. These findings suggest that, as a single intervention, promoting the transfer of patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction may not improve hospital outcomes.

Quality of care in the US territories.

BACKGROUND: Health care quality in the US territories is poorly characterized. We used process measures to compare the performance of hospitals in the US territories and in the US states. METHODS: Our sample included nonfederal hospitals located in the United States and its territories discharging Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia (PNE) (July 2005-June 2008). We compared risk-standardized 30-day mortality and readmission rates between territorial and stateside hospitals, adjusting for performance on core process measures and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: In 57 territorial hospitals and 4799 stateside hospitals, hospital mean 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates were significantly higher in the US territories (P<.001) for AMI (18.8% vs 16.0%), HF (12.3% vs 10.8%), and PNE (14.9% vs 11.4%). Hospital mean 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) were also significantly higher in the US territories for AMI (20.6% vs 19.8%; P=.04), and PNE (19.4% vs 18.4%; P=.01) but was not significant for HF (25.5% vs 24.5%; P=.07). The higher risk-standardized mortality rates in the US territories remained statistically significant after adjusting for hospital characteristics and core process measure performance. Hospitals in the US territories had lower performance on all core process measures (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with hospitals in the US states, hospitals in the US territories have significantly higher 30-day mortality rates and lower performance on every core process measure for patients discharged after AMI, HF, and PNE. Eliminating the substantial quality gap in the US territories should be a national priority.

Reducing asthma health disparities in poor Puerto Rican children: the effectiveness of a culturally tailored family intervention.

BACKGROUND: Island and mainland Puerto Rican children have the highest rates of asthma and asthma morbidity of any ethnic group in the United States. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effectiveness of a culturally adapted family asthma management intervention called CALMA (an acronym of the Spanish for "Take Control, Empower Yourself and Achieve Management of Asthma") in reducing asthma morbidity in poor Puerto Rican children with asthma. METHODS: Low-income children with persistent asthma were selected from a national health plan insurance claims database by using a computerized algorithm. After baseline, families were randomly assigned to either the intervention or a control group. RESULTS: No significant differences between control and intervention group were found for the primary outcome of symptom-free days. However, children in the CALMA intervention group had 6.5% more symptom-free nights, were 3 times more likely to have their asthma under control, and were less likely to visit the emergency department and be hospitalized as compared to the control group. Caregivers receiving CALMA were significantly less likely to feel helpless, frustrated, or upset because of their child's asthma and more likely to feel confident to manage their child's asthma. CONCLUSION: A home-based asthma intervention program tailored to the cultural needs of low income Puerto Rican families is a promising intervention for reducing asthma morbidity.