Why the study?
Does admission to hospitals with on-site invasive cardiac services affect procedure use and survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction compared to hospitals without such services?
Does admission to hospitals with on-site invasive cardiac services affect procedure use and survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction compared to hospitals without such services?
Improvements in patient survival for acute myocardial infarction were most significant in VA hospitals without on-site invasive cardiac services between 1988 and 1994, diminishing survival differences across hospital types.
Diminished survival gaps amid rising procedures; leaves open whether on-site services affect contemporary AMI outcomes.
This study examines temporal trends in the use and outcomes of cardiac procedures for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals with and without invasive cardiac services. Between 1988 and 1994, there was striking overall growth in the use of cardiac procedures in the VA. Over this time period, the authors found persistent variation in the use of cardiac procedures but diminished differences in patient survival among patients admitted to different types of hospitals. Growth of cardiac procedure use and improvements in patient survival were most significant in hospitals without on-site invasive cardiac services. We were unable to determine whether survival gains were associated with increased procedure use or unmeasured improvements in the process of care. These trends raise intriguing questions about access to and outcomes of cardiac procedures in health systems composed of hospitals with and without a full complement of on-site invasive cardiac services.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wright et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: