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; 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.

  • [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. · 4.56 Impact Factor