Key result
Admission to metropolitan hospitals for AMI was associated with significantly higher odds of in-patient coronary angiography compared to non-metropolitan hospitals (OR 68.64; 95% CI 17.29-272.49).
Why the study?
Does admission to a metropolitan hospital increase the use of cardiac procedures in patients with acute myocardial infarction and angina compared to non-metropolitan hospitals?
Cohort (n=3,836)
Yes
Does admission to a metropolitan hospital increase the use of cardiac procedures in patients with acute myocardial infarction and angina compared to non-metropolitan hospitals?
Odds Ratio: 68.64 (95% CI 17.29–272.49)
There is a massive disparity in the utilization of in-patient cardiac procedures, particularly coronary angiography, between metropolitan and non-metropolitan hospitals for patients with acute coronary syndromes.
May reflect access inequities for non-metropolitan AMI patients; leaves open whether policy interventions can narrow angiography gaps.
An observational cohort study examined the difference in use of cardiac procedures during and after hospital admission for acute chest pain in 47 metropolitan or non‐metropolitan hospitals across New South Wales (NSW). There were 3836 patients, represented by 4151 admissions to hospital after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), unstable angina or other angina. Follow up at 22 months was completed on 1695 patients. Patients admitted to metropolitan hospitals had higher rates of most cardiac procedures while in‐patients than did patients in non‐metropolitan hospitals. Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for the use of exercise stress tests, echocardiograms, nuclear studies and coronary angiography were 3.30 (1.38, 7.90), 9.34 (4.07, 21.44), 4.87 (2.08, 11.39) and 68.64 (17.29, 272.49), respectively, for patients with AMI and 1.93 (0.91, 4.12), 5.60 (1.60, 19.57), 3.51 (1.48, 8.33) and 38.57 (9.36, 158.94), respectively, for patients with unstable angina. Rates were similar between hospital types during the 22 months after discharge. The appropriateness of this large variation in resource use between metropolitan and non‐metropolitan hospitals requires examination.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heller et al. (2000) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction and angina (n=3,836). Admission to metropolitan hospitals vs. Admission to non-metropolitan hospitals was evaluated on Use of coronary angiography for patients with acute myocardial infarction (OR 68.64, 95% CI 17.29-272.49). Admission to metropolitan hospitals for AMI was associated with significantly higher odds of in-patient coronary angiography compared to non-metropolitan hospitals (OR 68.64; 95% CI 17.29-272.49).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: