Key result
Higher comorbidity levels in indigenous patients almost fully explained their higher risk of in-hospital death, but only partially explained their worse long-term mortality outcomes.
Why the study?
Do the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices adequately explain the excess mortality in indigenous versus non-indigenous patients after acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=2,035)
Do the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices adequately explain the excess mortality in indigenous versus non-indigenous patients after acute myocardial infarction?
Comorbidity indices perform well in populations with high chronic disease prevalence and explain the short-term, but not fully the long-term, excess mortality in indigenous Australian AMI patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comorbidity indices explain short-term but not long-term excess mortality; leaves open unmeasured factors for long-term indigenous AMI outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Indigenous Australians have higher prevalence of chronic diseases and worse acute care outcomes than other Australians. The extent to which higher chronic disease comorbidity levels are responsible for their worse outcomes is not clear, and the performance of comorbidity indices has not been assessed for this population with very high comorbidity levels. METHODS: Using hospital separations data, the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices were used to measure chronic disease prevalence in 2035 indigenous and non-indigenous patients hospitalised after their first acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the Northern Territory of Australia between 1992 and 2004, and to adjust for comorbidity in multivariate analysis of mortality outcomes (in-hospital and long-term deaths from coronary heart disease and all causes). Index performance was assessed by the difference between C statistic, Akaike information criterion statistic and estimate of excess indigenous mortality in models with and without comorbidity adjustment. RESULTS: Comorbidity index scores were higher for indigenous than non-indigenous patients and increased considerably over time, at least partly because of information bias. Indigenous patients' higher risk of in-hospital all-cause death was almost fully explained by their higher comorbidity levels. Their higher risk of long-term coronary heart disease and all-cause death was partially explained by higher comorbidity levels. Charlson and Elixhauser indices performed satisfactorily and similarly in this population. CONCLUSION: Comorbidity indices performed well in a population with very high chronic disease prevalence. After adjusting for comorbidity, short-term outcomes were similar for indigenous and non-indigenous AMI patients, but comorbidity at the time of the acute episode only partly explained the worse long-term outcomes for indigenous patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Condon et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction (n=2,035). Indigenous status vs. Non-indigenous status was evaluated on In-hospital and long-term deaths from coronary heart disease and all causes. Higher comorbidity levels in indigenous patients almost fully explained their higher risk of in-hospital death, but only partially explained their worse long-term mortality outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: