Language disparity is not a significant barrier for time-sensitive care of acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND: Language barriers were reported to affect timely access to health care and outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of language disparity on quality benchmarks of acute ischemic stroke therapy. METHODS: Consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke at the University of California Irvine Medical Center from 2013 to 2016 were studied. Patients were categorized into 3 groups according to their preferred language: English, Spanish, and other languages. Quality benchmarks and outcomes of the 3 language groups were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 928 admissions, 69.7% patients recorded English as preferred language, as compared to 17.3% Spanish and 13.0% other languages. There was no significant difference in the rate of receiving intravenous thrombolysis (24.3, 22.1 and 21.0%), last-known-well to door time, door-to-imaging time, door-to-needle time, and hospital length of stay among the 3 language groups. In univariate analysis, the other languages group had lower chance of favorable outcomes than the English-speaking group (26.3% vs 40.4, p < 0.05) while the Spanish-speaking group had lower mortality rate than English-speaking group (3.1% vs 7.7%, p = 0.05). After adjusting for age and initial NIHSS scores, multivariate regression models showed no significant difference in favorable outcomes and mortality between different language groups. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate no significant difference in quality benchmarks and outcome of acute ischemic stroke among 3 different language groups. Our results suggest that limited English proficiency is not a significant barrier for time-sensitive stroke care at Comprehensive Stroke Center.

Survival and Reintervention Risk by Patient Age and Preoperative Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Diameter after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard of care for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), but questions remain regarding the benefit in high-risk and elderly patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of age, preoperative AAA diameter, and their interaction on survival and reintervention rates after EVAR. METHODS: Our integrated health system's AAA endograft registry was used to identify patients who underwent elective EVAR between 2010 and 2014. Of interest was the effect of patient age at the time of surgery (≤80 vs. >80 years old), preoperative AAA diameter (≤5.5 cm vs. >5.5 cm), and their interaction. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and reintervention. Between-within mixed-effects Cox models with propensity score weights were fit. RESULTS: Of 1,967 patients undergoing EVAR, unadjusted rates for survival at 4 years after EVAR was 76.1%, and reintervention-free rate was 86.0%. For mortality, there was insufficient evidence for an interaction between age and AAA size (P = 0.309). Patient age >80 years was associated with 2.53-fold higher mortality risk (hazard ratios [HR] = 2.53; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.73-3.70; P < 0.001), whereas AAA > 5.5 cm was associated with 1.75-fold higher mortality risk (HR = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.26-2.45; P = 0.001). For reintervention risk, there were no significant interactions or main effects for age or AAA diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Age and AAA diameter are independent predictors of reduced survival after EVAR, but the effect is not amplified when both are present. Age >80 years or AAA size >5.5 cm did not increase the risk of reintervention. No specific AAA size, patient age, or combination thereof was identified that would contraindicate AAA repair.