ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2021
Differential benefits of cardiac care regionalization based on driving time to percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) require timely reperfusion, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) decreases morbidity and mortality. Regionalization of STEMI care has increased timeliness and use of PCI, but it is unknown whether benefits to regionalization depend on a community's distance from its nearest PCI center. We sought to determine whether STEMI regionalization benefits, measured by access to PCI centers, timeliness of treatment (same-day or in-hospital PCI), and mortality, differ by baseline distance to nearest PCI center.
methodsUsing a difference-in-difference-in-differences model, we examined access to PCI-capable hospitals, receipt of PCI either on the day of admission or during the care episode, and health outcomes for patients hospitalized from January 1, 2006, to September 30, 2015.
resultsOf 139,408 patients (2006 to 2015), 51% could reach the nearest PCI center in <30 minutes, and 49% required ≥30 minutes driving time. For communities with baseline access ≥30 minutes, regionalization increased the probability of admission to a PCI-capable hospital by 9.4% and also increased the likelihood of receiving same-day PCI (by 11.2%) and PCI during the hospitalization (by 7.4%). Patients living within 30 minutes did not accrue significant benefits (measured by admission to a PCI-capable hospital or receipt of PCI) from regionalization initiatives. Regionalization more than halved access disparities and completely eliminated treatment disparities between communities ≥30 minutes and communities <30 minutes from the nearest PCI hospital.
conclusionsMeasured by likelihood of admission to a PCI-capable facility and receipt of PCI, benefits of STEMI regionalization in California accrued only to patients whose nearest PCI center was ≥30 minutes away. We found no mortality benefits of regionalization based on distance from PCI center. Our results suggest that policymakers focus STEMI regionalization efforts in communities that are not already well serviced by PCI-capable hospitals.
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.