Why the study?
Data were limited on uninsured patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock.
Does uninsured status worsen in-hospital mortality and reduce the use of guideline-directed therapies in patients with AMI-CS compared with privately insured individuals?
Does uninsured status worsen in-hospital mortality and reduce the use of guideline-directed therapies in patients with AMI-CS compared with privately insured individuals?
Uninsured patients presenting with AMI-CS face significant healthcare disparities, experiencing higher in-hospital mortality and lower utilization of guideline-directed therapies compared to privately insured patients.
Uninsured AMI-CS patients had higher mortality and less GDMT use; leaves open causal mechanisms and policy interventions.
Background: There are limited data on uninsured patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). This study sought to compare the management and outcomes of AMI-CS between uninsured and privately insured individuals. Methods: Using the National Inpatient Sample (2000–2016), a retrospective cohort of adult (≥18 years) uninsured admissions (primary payer—self-pay or no charge) were compared with privately insured individuals. Interhospital transfers were excluded. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, temporal trends in admissions, use of cardiac procedures, do-not-resuscitate status, palliative care referrals, and resource utilization. Results: Of 402 182 AMI-CS admissions, 21 966 (5.4%) and 93 814 (23.3%) were uninsured and privately insured. Compared with private insured individuals, uninsured admissions were younger, male, from a lower socioeconomic status, had lower comorbidity, higher rates of acute organ failure, ST-segment elevation AMI-CS (77.3% versus 76.4%), and concomitant cardiac arrest (33.8% versus 31.9%; all P <0.001). Compared with 2000, in 2016, there were more uninsured (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.13–1.17]; P <0.001) and less privately insured admissions (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.83–0.87]; P <0.001). Uninsured individuals received less frequent coronary angiography (79.5% versus 81.0%), percutaneous coronary intervention (60.8% versus 62.2%), mechanical circulatory support (54% versus 55.5%), and had higher palliative care (3.8% versus 3.2%) and do-not-resuscitate status use (4.4% versus 3.2%; all P <0.001). Uninsured admissions had higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.55–1.68]; P <0.001) and resource utilization. Conclusions: Uninsured individuals have higher in-hospital mortality and lower use of guideline-directed therapies in AMI-CS compared with privately insured individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vallabhajosyula et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: