A Population-Based Analysis of Ethnic Differences in Admission to the Intensive Care Unit after Stroke

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Neurocritical Care (Impact Factor: 2.44). 08/2012; 17(3). DOI: 10.1007/s12028-012-9770-5
Source: PubMed


Mexican-Americans (MAs) have shown lower post-stroke mortality compared to non-hispanic whites (NHWs). Limited evidence suggests race/ethnic differences exist in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions following stroke. Our objective was to investigate the association of ethnicity with admission to the ICU following stroke.

Cases of intracerebral hemorrhage and acute ischemic stroke were prospectively ascertained as part of the Brain Attack Surveillance in Corpus Christi (BASIC) project for the period of January 2000 through December 2009. Logistic regression models fitted within the generalized additive model framework were used to test associations between ethnicity and ICU admission and potential confounders. An interaction term between age and ethnicity was investigated in the final model.

A total 1,464 cases were included in analysis. MAs were younger, more likely to have diabetes, and less likely to have atrial fibrillation, health insurance, or high school diploma than NHWs. On unadjusted analysis, there was a trend toward MAs being more likely to be admitted to ICU than NHWs (34.6 vs 30.3 %; OR = 1.22; 95 % CI 0.98-1.52; p = 0.08). However, on adjusted analysis, no overall association between MA ethnicity and ICU admission (OR = 1.13; 95 % CI 0.85-1.50) was found. When an interaction term for age and ethnicity was added to this model, there was only borderline evidence for effect modification by age of the ethnicity/ICU relationship (p = 0.16).

No overall association between ethnicity and ICU admission was observed in this community. ICU utilization alone does not likely explain ethnic differences in survival following stroke between MAs and NHWs.

4 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine if racial and ethnic variations exist in intensive care (ICU) use during terminal hospitalizations, and, if variations do exist, to determine whether they can be explained by systematic differences in hospital utilization by race/ethnicity. 1999 hospital discharge data from all nonfederal hospitals in Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia. We identified all terminal admissions (N = 192,705) among adults. We calculated crude rates of ICU use among non-Hispanic whites, blacks, Hispanics, and those with "other" race/ethnicity. We performed multivariable logistic regression on ICU use, with and without adjustment for clustering of patients within hospitals, to calculate adjusted differences in ICU use and by race/ethnicity. We explored both a random-effects (RE) and fixed-effect (FE) specification to adjust for hospital-level clustering. The data were collected by each state. ICU use during the terminal hospitalization was highest among nonwhites, varying from 64.4 percent among Hispanics to 57.5 percent among whites. Compared to white women, the risk-adjusted odds of ICU use was higher for white men and for nonwhites of both sexes (odds ratios [ORs] and 95 percent confidence intervals: white men = 1.16 (1.14-1.19), black men = 1.35 (1.17-1.56), Hispanic men = 1.52 (1.27-1.82), black women = 1.31 (1.25-1.37), Hispanic women =1.53 (1.43-1.63)). Additional adjustment for within-hospital clustering of patients using the RE model did not change the estimate for white men, but markedly attenuated observed differences for blacks (OR for men =1.12 (0.96-1.31), women = 1.10 (1.03-1.17)) and Hispanics (OR for men =1.19 (1.00-1.42), women = 1.18 (1.09-1.27)). Results from the FE model were similar to the RE model (OR for black men = 1.10 (0.95-1.28), black women = 1.07 (1.02-1.13) Hispanic men = 1.17 (0.96-1.42), and Hispanic women = 1.14 (1.06-1.24)) The majority of observed differences in terminal ICU use among blacks and Hispanics were attributable to their use of hospitals with higher ICU use rather than to racial differences in ICU use within the same hospital.
    Health Services Research 01/2007; 41(6):2219-37. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00598.x · 2.78 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify differences in advanced care planning and end-of-life decision-making between whites and blacks aged 70 and older. The Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD) study is a nationally representative survey of adults who were aged 70 and older in 1993. Relatives (proxy respondents) for 540 persons who died between the first (1993) and second (1995) waves of the study were surveyed about advanced care planning and end-of-life decisions that were made for their family member who died. Respondents were interviewed at home by telephone (n = 444) or in person (n = 95). The 540 proxy respondents included 454 whites and 86 blacks. Questions were asked about advance care planning and end-of-life decisions. Whites were significantly more likely than blacks to discuss treatment preferences before death (P = .002), to complete a living will (P = .001), and to designate a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care (DPAHC) (P = .032). The treatment decisions for whites were more likely to involve limiting care in certain situations (P = .007) and withholding treatment before death (P = .034). In contrast, the treatment decisions for blacks were more likely to be based on the desire to provide all care possible in order to prolong life (P = .013). Logistic regression models revealed that race continued to be a significant predictor of advance care planning and treatment decisions even after controlling for sociodemographic factors. These findings suggest that there are important differences between blacks and whites regarding advanced care planning and end-of-life decision-making. Health professionals need to understand the diverse array of end-of-life preferences among various racial and ethnic groups and to develop greater awareness and sensitivity to these preferences when helping patients with end-of-life decision-making.
    Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 07/2000; 48(6):658-63. DOI:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb04724.x · 4.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is important to adjust stroke outcomes for differences in initial stroke severity. The NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) is a commonly used stroke severity measure but has been validated for retrospective scoring only in a subset of stroke clinical trial participants. The purpose of this research was to assess the validity and reliability of an algorithm for retrospective NIHSS scoring in a setting with usual chart documentation. An algorithm for retrospective NIHSS scoring was developed with written history and physical admission notes. Missing physical examination data were scored as normal. One investigator prospectively scored the admission NIHSS in 32 consecutive stroke patients. Two raters retrospectively scored the NIHSS by applying the algorithm to photocopied admission notes. Linear regression was used to assess interrater reliability and agreement between prospective and retrospective NIHSS scores. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess systematic scoring bias. Weighted kappa statistics were calculated to assess the level of agreement of individual NIHSS items. Only 1 admission note was complete for all NIHSS elements. Interrater reliability was near perfect (r(2)=0.98, P<0. 001). Agreement between prospective and retrospective NIHSS score was also excellent (r(2)=0.94, P<0.001) and there was no systematic bias in retrospective scores. Agreement for individual items was moderate to high for all items except level of consciousness. Retrospective NIHSS scoring with the algorithm is reliable and unbiased even when physical examination elements are missing from the written record. Stroke research using retrospective review of charts or of administrative databases should adjust for differences in stroke severity using such an algorithm.
    Stroke 04/2000; 31(4):858-62. DOI:10.1161/01.STR.31.4.858 · 5.72 Impact Factor
Show more