Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32527795›Full record

ArticleCMAJ open

Cardiac intervention rates for older patients with acute myocardial infarction in the United States and Ontario, 2003-2013: a retrospective cohort study.

Laura C Yasaitis, Jun Guan, Dennis T Ko, Amitabh Chandra, Therese A Stukel

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Comparative Analysis of Patients With STEMI and COVID-19 Between Canada and the United States.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2023
    Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Laura C YasaitisLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (Yasaitis), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; ICES Central (Guan, Ko, Stukel); Department of Medicine (Ko), Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Ko, Stukel), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; John F. Kennedy School of Government (Chandra), Harvard University; Harvard Business School (Chandra); National Bureau of Economics Research (Chandra), Cambridge, Mass.; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice (Stukel), Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
Jun GuanLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (Yasaitis), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; ICES Central (Guan, Ko, Stukel); Department of Medicine (Ko), Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Ko, Stukel), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; John F. Kennedy School of Government (Chandra), Harvard University; Harvard Business School (Chandra); National Bureau of Economics Research (Chandra), Cambridge, Mass.; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice (Stukel), Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
Dennis T KoLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (Yasaitis), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; ICES Central (Guan, Ko, Stukel); Department of Medicine (Ko), Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Ko, Stukel), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; John F. Kennedy School of Government (Chandra), Harvard University; Harvard Business School (Chandra); National Bureau of Economics Research (Chandra), Cambridge, Mass.; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice (Stukel), Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
Amitabh ChandraLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (Yasaitis), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; ICES Central (Guan, Ko, Stukel); Department of Medicine (Ko), Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Ko, Stukel), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; John F. Kennedy School of Government (Chandra), Harvard University; Harvard Business School (Chandra); National Bureau of Economics Research (Chandra), Cambridge, Mass.; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice (Stukel), Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
Therese A StukelLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (Yasaitis), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; ICES Central (Guan, Ko, Stukel); Department of Medicine (Ko), Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Ko, Stukel), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; John F. Kennedy School of Government (Chandra), Harvard University; Harvard Business School (Chandra); National Bureau of Economics Research (Chandra), Cambridge, Mass.; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice (Stukel), Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH stukel@ices.on.ca.

Funding

UNDERSTANDING AND IMPROVING EPISODE-BASED HOSPITAL CAREP01AG019783 · NIA · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Alistair James O'MALLEY · 2001 to 2026
$52.9M
CIHR FDN 143303NIA NIH HHS P01 AG019783
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious work showed lower cardiac intervention rates for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Ontario than in the United States. We assessed whether Ontario's efforts to improve access to rapid percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AMI were associated with improved timeliness of care and whether this closed the gap between the 2 jurisdictions.

methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we followed adults aged 66-99 years in the US and Ontario for 30 days after admission for incident AMI between 2003 and 2013 using health administrative data from both countries. We calculated the proportion of patients who received cardiac catheterization, PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting on the day of and within 30 days of admission overall and according to AMI type (ST-segment elevation AMI [STEMI] v. non-STEMI) and risk group (low, medium or high predicted risk of 30-d mortality).

resultsWe followed 414 216 patients in the US and 112 484 in Ontario. The large disparities in cardiac intervention rates observed in 2003 mostly disappeared over time. By 2013, the proportion of patients who received same-day PCI was only slightly higher in the US than in Ontario (22.3% v. 19.2%), whereas the converse was true for 30-day PCI (44.0% v. 41.3%). In 2013, patients with STEMI in the US and Ontario received PCI at nearly identical rates on the day of admission (66.3% v. 63.8%); however, more patients at high risk with STEMI in the US than in Ontario received PCI, both on the day of admission (55.5% v. 44.7%) and by 30 days (60.5% v. 55.0%).

interpretationDespite differences in resources and organization of delivery systems, by 2013, timely receipt of PCI by Ontario patients with AMI lagged only slightly behind that by US patients. A higher supply of PCI centres in the US may have facilitated earlier intervention among patients at high risk with STEMI.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCardiac CatheterizationComorbidityDisease ManagementFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleMortalityMyocardial InfarctionOntarioPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPrevalencePublic Health Surveillance

Identifiers

PMID32527795
PMCPMC7850174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.