Article

Disappearing and reappearing differences in drug-eluting stent use by race

PhD Student/Researcher Professor Assistant Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Medical Student, Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Health Researcher, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Washington, DC, USA Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (Impact Factor: 1.58). 12/2011; 19(2). DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01809.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Rationale, aims and objectives  Drug-eluting coronary stents (DES) rapidly dominated the marketplace in the United States after approval in 2003, but utilization rates were initially lower among African American patients. We assess whether racial differences persisted as DES diffused into practice. Methods  Medicare claims data were used to identify coronary stenting procedures among elderly patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Regression models of the choice of DES versus bare mental stent controlled for demographics, ACS type, co-morbidities and hospital characteristics. Diffusion was assessed in the short run (2003-2004) and long run (2007), with the effect of race calculated to allow for time-varying effects. Results  The sample included 381 887 Medicare beneficiaries treated with stent insertion; approximately 5% were African American. Initially (May 2003-February 2004), African American race was associated with lower DES use compared to other races (44.3% versus 46.5%, P < 0.01). Once DES usage was high in all patients (March-December 2004), differences were not significant (79.8% versus 80.3%, P = 0.45). Subsequent concerns regarding DES safety caused reductions in DES use, with African Americans having lower use than other racial groups in 2007 (63.1% versus 65.2%, P < 0.01). Conclusions  Racial disparities in DES use initially disappeared during a period of rapid diffusion and high usage rates; the reappearance of disparities in use by 2007 may reflect DES use tailored to unmeasured aspects of case mix and socio-economic status. Further work is needed to understand whether underlying differences in race reflect decisions regarding treatment appropriateness.

0 Followers
 · 
81 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine if racial disparities exist in the treatment and outcomes of patients undergoing contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We examined the association between race, process of care, and outcomes of patients undergoing PCI between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011, and enrolled in the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium. We used propensity matching to compare the outcome of black and white patients. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 65,175 patients, of whom 6,873 (10.5%) were black and 55,789 (85.6%) were white. Black patients were more likely to be younger, be female, have more comorbidities, and be uninsured. Overall, black patients were less likely to receive prasugrel (10.0% vs 14.5%, P < .001) and drug-eluting stents (62.5% vs 67.7%, P < .001), largely related to lower use of these therapies in hospitals treating a higher proportion of black patients. No differences were seen between white and black patients with regard to inhospital mortality (odds ratio 1.34, 95% CI 0.82-2.2, P = .24), contrast-induced nephropathy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.40, P = .67), and need for transfusion (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.98-1.64, P = .06). White race was associated with increased odds of heart failure (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05-2.08, P = .024) and vascular complications (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03-1.90, P = .032). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with white patients, black patients undergoing PCI have a greater burden of comorbidities but, after adjusting for these differences, have similar inhospital survival and lower odds of vascular complications and heart failure after PCI.
    American heart journal 06/2013; 165(6):893-901.e2. DOI:10.1016/j.ahj.2013.02.030 · 4.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The rapidly changing landscape of percutaneous coronary intervention provides a unique model for examining disparities over time. Previous studies have not examined socioeconomic inequalities in the current era of drug eluting stents (DES). Methods and Results We analyzed 835 070 hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project across all insurance types from 2008 to 2011, examining whether quality of care and outcomes for patients with ACS differed by income (based on zip code of residence) with adjustment for patient characteristics and clustering by hospital. We found that lower‐income patients were less likely to receive an angiogram within 24 hours of a ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (69.5% for IQ1 versus 73.7% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.79 [0.68 to 0.91]) or within 48 hours of a Non‐STEMI (47.6% for IQ1 versus 51.8% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.86 [0.75 to 0.99]). Lower income was associated with less use of a DES (64.7% for IQ1 versus 71.2% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.83 [0.74 to 0.93]). However, no differences were found for coronary artery bypass surgery. Among STEMI patients, lower‐income patients also had slightly increased adjusted mortality rates (10.8% for IQ1 versus 9.4% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 1.17 [1.11 to 1.25]). After further adjusting for time to reperfusion among STEMI patients, mortality differences across income groups decreased. Conclusions For the most well accepted procedural treatments for ACS, income inequalities have faded. However, such inequalities have persisted for DES use, a relatively expensive and until recently, controversial revascularization procedure. Differences in mortality are significantly associated with differences in time to primary PCI, suggesting an important target for understanding why these inequalities persist.
    Journal of the American Heart Association 10/2014; 3(6). DOI:10.1161/JAHA.114.001029 · 2.88 Impact Factor