Why the study?
Identifying and eliminating health disparities is a public health priority, but whether cardiac testing or outcome disparities exist by race or sex in patients with detectable to mildly elevated serum troponin remained unknown.
Do race and sex disparities exist in outcomes for patients with chest pain and detectable or mildly elevated troponin?
Do race and sex disparities exist in outcomes for patients with chest pain and detectable or mildly elevated troponin?
Non-white patients presenting with chest pain and mildly elevated troponin face a higher risk of subsequent ACS despite standardized initial testing, highlighting disparities in post-discharge outcomes.
May reflect post-discharge disparities; hypothesis-generating for equity interventions in chest pain cohorts.
Background: Identifying and eliminating health disparities is a public health priority. The goal of this analysis is to determine whether cardiac testing or outcome disparities exist by race or sex in patients with detectable to mildly elevated serum troponin. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of the CMR-IMPACT trial that randomized patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome and a detectable or mildly elevated troponin measure from 4 US hospitals to an early invasive angiography or cardiac MRI strategy. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, cardiac hospital readmission, and repeat cardiac ED. Secondary outcomes were components of the composite and revascularization. Results: < 0.001) and stenosis >70 % (p < 0.001) during index cardiac testing. Despite these findings, ACS after discharge was higher among non-white patients (aHR 1.84, 95 % CI 1.11-3.05). Females had lower rates of revascularization (aHR 0.52, 95 % CI 0.33-0.82), but no increase in ACS after discharge (aHR 0.90, 95 % CI 0.55-1.49). Conclusion: Non-white patients had higher rates of ACS following discharge despite lower rates of obstructive CAD following standardization of index cardiac testing. Future disparity works should explore care following the index encounter.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Snavely et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: