Key result
Low income links to ~68% higher unadjusted MACE after primary PCI, attenuated by baseline characteristics.
Why the study?
The role of socioeconomic status in relation to clinical outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention remains poorly understood.
Cohort (n=7,385)
Hazard Ratio: 1.68 (95% CI 1.47–1.92)
Baseline differences largely explain income-related MACE risk after primary PCI; leaves open residual employment effects and equity interventions.
BACKGROUND: The association between low socioeconomic status (SES) and high mortality from coronary heart disease is well-known. However, the role of SES in relation to the clinical outcome after primary percutaneous coronary intervention remains poorly understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 7385 patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Participants were divided into high-SES and low-SES groups according to income, education, and employment status. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) at maximum follow-up (mean, 3.7 years). Low-SES patients had more adverse baseline risk profiles than high-SES patients. The cumulative risk of major adverse cardiac events after maximum follow-up was higher among low-income patients and unemployed patients compared with their counterparts (income: hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.47-1.92; employment status: hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.46-2.10). After adjustment for patient characteristics, these differences were substantially attenuated (income: hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93-1.33; employment status: hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.03-1.56). Further adjustment for admission findings, procedure-related data, and medical treatment during follow-up did not significantly affect the associations. With education as the SES indicator, no between-group differences were observed in the risk of the composite end point. CONCLUSIONS: Even in a tax-financed healthcare system, low-SES patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention face a worse prognosis than high-SES patients. The poor outcome seems to be largely explained by differences in baseline patient characteristics. Employment status and income (but not education level) were associated with clinical outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jakobsen et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in Coronary heart disease requiring primary percutaneous coronary intervention (n=7,385). Low socioeconomic status (low income) vs. High socioeconomic status (high income) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.47-1.92). Low-income patients had a higher unadjusted risk of major adverse cardiac events after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (HR 1.68), though this association was largely attenuated after adjusting for baseline patient characteristics.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: