Key result
Uninsured patients with STEMI had significantly lower odds of initially receiving care at a PCI-capable facility compared to insured patients (aOR 0.62; 95% CI 0.54-0.72; p<0.001).
Why the study?
Initial care at PCI-capable facilities reduces time to reperfusion in STEMI, but whether insurance status is associated with initial care at PCI-capable emergency departments was unknown.
Does lack of health insurance reduce the likelihood of receiving initial care at a PCI-capable facility in adult patients with STEMI?
Cross-Sectional (n=135,358)
Yes
Does lack of health insurance reduce the likelihood of receiving initial care at a PCI-capable facility in adult patients with STEMI?
Uninsured patients with STEMI are significantly less likely to receive initial care at PCI-capable facilities, highlighting a critical disparity in access to time-sensitive reperfusion therapy.
Uninsured STEMI patients face potential barriers to PCI-capable EDs; leaves open whether policy interventions can improve equitable access and outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Timely reperfusion is necessary to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Initial care by facilities with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capabilities reduces time to reperfusion. We sought to examine whether insurance status was associated with initial care at emergency departments (EDs) with PCI capabilities among adult patients with STEMI. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using Department of Healthcare Access and Information, a nonpublic statewide database reporting ED visits and hospitalizations in California. We included adults initially arriving at EDs with STEMI by diagnostic code (International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision or 10th Revision) from 2011 to 2019. Multivariable logistic regression modeling included initial care by PCI capable facility as the primary outcome and insurance status (none vs. any) as the primary exposure. Covariates included patient, facility, and temporal factors and we conducted multiple robustness checks. RESULTS: We analyzed 135,358 eligible visits with STEMI included. In our multivariable model, the odds of uninsured patients being initially treated at a PCI-capable facility were significantly lower than those of insured patients (adjusted odds ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.72, p < 0.001) and was unchanged in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Uninsured patients with STEMI had significantly lower odds of first receiving care at facilities with PCI capabilities. Our results suggest potential disparities in accessing high-quality and time-sensitive treatment for uninsured patients with STEMI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2023) conducted a cross-sectional in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=135,358). Uninsured status vs. Insured status was evaluated on Initial care by a PCI-capable facility (aOR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.72, p=< 0.001). Uninsured patients with STEMI had significantly lower odds of initially receiving care at a PCI-capable facility compared to insured patients (aOR 0.62; 95% CI 0.54-0.72; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: