ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2018
Advanced Practice Provider Versus Physician-Only Outpatient Follow-Up After Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advanced Practice Providers in Burn Care, 2013-2022.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2025Article
- The Scope of Practice for Primary Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Expanded to Advanced Practice Providers: What Does the Data Show?Current cardiology reports · 2023Review
- Advanced Practice Provider Versus Physician-Only Outpatient Follow-Up After Acute Myocardial Infarction.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Physician shortages and reimbursement changes have led to greater use of advanced practice providers ( APP s). Prevalence of and outcomes associated with APP care following myocardial infarction are unknown. Methods and Results We examined outpatient cardiology or primary care visits within 90 days post-myocardial infarction among 29 477 Medicare-insured patients aged ≥65 years from 364 hospitals in Acute Coronary Treatment Intervention Outcomes Network Registry. We compared medication adherence, all-cause readmission risk, mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular events between patients seen by APP s versus physicians only. Overall, 11% of myocardial infarction patients were treated by an APP . Patients seen by APP s were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (37% versus 33%) and heart failure (20% versus 16%), be discharged to a nursing facility (21% versus 13%) and had more outpatient visits within 90 days post-discharge (median 6 versus 5, P<0.01 for all) than those seen by physicians only. Adherence to evidence-based medications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.08) and readmission risks (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.26) were similar between patients seen by APP s versus physicians only. Risks of 90-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.42) and major adverse cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.23) were also similar between patients seen by APP s versus physicians only. Conclusions APP s were likely used to provide more frequent monitoring of high-risk post- MI patients. Medication adherence, readmission risk, mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ substantially between patients seen by physician- APP teams than those seen by physicians only.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.