Should fee-for-service be for all guideline-advocated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care? Observations from the Snapshot ACS study

Objective Risk Assessment vs Standard Care for Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Although international guidelines recommend use of the Global Registries of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score (GRS) to guide acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treatment decisions, the prospective utility of the GRS in improving care and outcomes is unproven.

Objective

To assess the effect of routine GRS implementation on guideline-indicated treatments and clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with ACS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Prospective cluster (hospital-level) randomized open-label blinded end point (PROBE) clinical trial using a multicenter ACS registry of acute care cardiology services. Fixed sampling of the first 10 patients within calendar month, with either ST-segment elevation or non-ST-segment elevation ACS. The study enrolled patients from June 2014 to March 2018, and data were analyzed between February 2020 and April 2020.

Interventions

Implementation of routine risk stratification using the GRS and guideline recommendations.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a performance score based on receipt of early invasive treatment, discharge prescription of 4 of 5 guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies, and cardiac rehabilitation referral. Clinical outcomes included a composite of all-cause death and/or myocardial infarction (MI) within 1 year.

Results

This study enrolled 2318 patients from 24 hospitals and was stopped prematurely owing to futility. Of the patients enrolled, median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 56-74 years), 29.5% were women (n = 684), and 62.9% were considered high risk (n = 1433). Provision of all 3 measures among high-risk patients did not differ between the randomized arms (GRS: 424 of 717 [59.9%] vs control: 376 of 681 [55.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.63-1.71; P = .88). The provision of early invasive treatment was increased compared with the control arm (GRS: 1042 of 1135 [91.8%] vs control: 989 of 1183 [83.6%]; OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.30-3.96; P = .004). Prescription of 4 of 5 guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies (GRS: 864 of 1135 [76.7%] vs control: 893 of 1183 [77.5%]; OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.38) and cardiac rehabilitation (GRS: 855 of 1135 [75.1%] vs control: 861 of 1183 [72.8%]; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.32-1.44) were not different. By 12 months, GRS intervention was not associated with a significant reduction in death or MI compared with the control group (GRS: 96 of 1044 [9.2%] vs control: 146 of 1087 [13.4%]; OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.38-1.14).

Conclusions and Relevance

Routine GRS implementation in cardiology services with high levels of clinical care was associated with an increase in early invasive treatment but not other aspects of care. Low event rates and premature study discontinuation indicates the need for further, larger scale randomized studies.

Trial Registration

anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12614000550606.

Education-related variation in coronary procedure rates and the contribution of private health care in Australia: a prospective cohort study

Background

Contemporary Australian evidence on socioeconomic variation in secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) care, a possible contributor to inequalities in cardiovascular disease outcomes, is lacking. This study examined the relationship between education, an individual-level indicator of socioeconomic position, and receipt of angiography and revascularisation procedures following incident hospitalisation for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or angina, and the role of private care in this relationship.

Methods

Participants aged ≥45 from the New South Wales population-based 45 and Up Study with no history of prior ischaemic heart disease hospitalised for AMI or angina were followed for receipt of angiography or revascularisation within 30 days of hospital admission, ascertained through linked hospital records. Education attainment, measured on baseline survey, was categorised as low (no school certificate/qualifications), intermediate (school certificate/trade/apprenticeship/diploma) and high (university degree). Cox regression estimated the association (hazard ratios [HRs]) between education and coronary procedure receipt, adjusting for demographic and health-related factors, and testing for linear trend. Private health insurance was investigated as a mediating variable.

Results

Among 4454 patients with AMI, 68.3% received angiography within 30 days of admission (crude rate: 25.8/person-year) and 48.8% received revascularisation (rate: 11.7/person-year); corresponding figures among 4348 angina patients were 59.7% (rate: 17.4/person-year) and 30.8% (rate: 5.3/person-year). Procedure rates decreased with decreasing levels of education. Comparing low to high education, angiography rates were 29% lower among AMI patients (adjusted HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56–0.90) and 40% lower among angina patients (0.60, 0.47–0.76). Patterns were similar for revascularisation among those with angina (0.78, 0.61–0.99) but not AMI (0.93, 0.69–1.25). After adjustment for private health insurance status, the HRs were attenuated and there was little evidence of an association between education and angiography among those admitted for AMI.

Conclusions

There is a socioeconomic gradient in coronary procedures with the most disadvantaged patients being less likely to receive angiography following hospital admission for AMI or angina, and revascularisation procedures for angina. Unequal access to private health care contributes to these differences. The extent to which the remaining variation is clinically appropriate, or whether angiography is being underused among people with low socioeconomic position or overused among those with higher socioeconomic position, is unclear.

Socioeconomic Equity in the Receipt of In-Hospital Care and Outcomes in Australian Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: The CONCORDANCE Registry

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a social determinant of both health and receipt of health care services, but its impact is under-studied in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this study was to examine the influence of SES on in-hospital care, and clinical events for patients presenting with an ACS to public hospitals in Australia.

METHODS

Data from 9064 ACS patient records were collected from 41 public hospitals nationwide from 2009 as part of the Cooperative National Registry of Acute Coronary Syndrome Care (CONCORDANCE) registry. For this analysis, we divided the cohort into four socioeconomic groups (based on postcode of usual residence) and compared the in-hospital care provided and clinical outcomes before and after adjustment for both patient clinical characteristics and hospital clustering.

RESULTS

Patients were divided into four SES groups (from the most to the least disadvantaged: 2042 (23%) vs. 2104 (23%) vs. 1994 (22%) vs. 2968 (32%)). Following adjustments for patient characteristics, there were no differences in the odds of receiving coronary angiogram, revascularisation, prescription of recommended medication, or referral to cardiac rehabilitation across the SES groups (p=0.06, 0.69, 0.89 and 0.79, respectively). After adjustment for clinical characteristics, no associations were observed for in-hospital and cumulative death (p=0.62 and p=0.71, respectively). However, the most disadvantaged group were 37% more likely to have a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) than the least disadvantaged group (OR (95% CI): 1.37 (1.1, 1.71), p=0.02) driven by incidence of in-hospital heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there may be gaps in the delivery of care, this delivery of care does not differ by patient's SES. It is an encouraging affirmation that all patients in Australian public hospitals receive equal in-hospital care, and the likelihood of death is comparable between the SES groups.