Key result
Private versus public AMI care links to ~62% higher repeat PCI risk but lower five-year mortality.
Why the study?
Does treatment as a privately funded patient improve outcomes in AMI patients treated with first-ever PCI compared to publicly funded patients?
Cohort (n=6,176)
Yes
Does treatment as a privately funded patient improve outcomes in AMI patients treated with first-ever PCI compared to publicly funded patients?
Hazard Ratio: 1.62 (95% CI 1.36–1.94)
Absolute Event Rate: 13% vs 8%
p-value: p=<0.001
Treatment as a private patient for AMI with first PCI is associated with an increased likelihood of additional revascularization but a reduced risk of all-cause mortality at 5 years compared to public patients.
Private status linked to more repeat PCI yet lower 5-year mortality post-AMI; leaves open selection bias or care differences.
BACKGROUND: Disparities in the use of invasive coronary artery revascularisation procedures to manage acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have been found in several developed economies. Factors such as socio-economic status, income and funding source may influence the use of invasive procedures and have also been associated with ongoing care. The objectives of this study were to determine whether outcomes for patients at one and five years after AMI treated with first-ever percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were the same for public and privately funded patients. METHODS: Retrospective, population-based cohort study using linked data to identify 30-day survivors of AMI treated with PCI in the index admission between 1995 and 2008 in Western Australian hospitals. The main outcome measures were admission for another PCI, re-AMI, and all-cause and cardiac mortality at one and five years. RESULTS: At one year, private patients were at greater adjusted risk for another PCI (HR 1.62 [1.36 - 1.94]; p < 0.001) than public patients, and more likely to have an additional revascularisation procedure from 90 days to 5 years (HR 1.33 [1.11 - 1.58]; p < 0.001). They were at less risk for all-cause death within five years (HR 0.69 [0.62-0.91]; p = 0.01) with a trend to reduced risk for cardiac death and re-AMI. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment as a private patient for AMI with first PCI is associated with an increased likelihood of additional coronary revascularisation procedure within 12 months and to five years, and a reduced risk for all-cause mortality to 5 years. While additional procedures were not associated with poorer outcomes, there was no clear relationship between better outcomes and additional procedures. Other lifestyle and health care factors may contribute to the significant reduction in all-cause mortality and the trends to reduced hazard for AMI and cardiac death among private patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bradshaw et al. (2014) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with first-ever percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n=6,176). Private funding source vs. Public funding source was evaluated on Additional PCI at 1 year (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.36-1.94, p=<0.001). Treatment as a private patient for acute myocardial infarction with first percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with an increased risk for another PCI at one year (HR 1.62) and reduced all-cause mortality at five years (HR 0.69) compared to public patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: