Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2023
Relationship Between Community-Level Distress and Cardiac Rehabilitation Participation, Facility Access, and Clinical Outcomes After Inpatient Coronary Revascularization.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thompson Michael P, Hou Hechuan, Stewart James W, Pagani Francis D, Hawkins Robert B, Keteyian Steven J, Sukul Devraj, Likosky Donald S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although disparities in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) participation are well documented, the role of community-level distress is poorly understood. This study evaluated the relationship between community-level distress and CR participation, access to CR facilities, and clinical outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on a 100% sample of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing inpatient coronary revascularization between July 2016 and December 2018. Community-level distress was defined using the Distressed Community Index quintile at the beneficiary zip code level, with the first and fifth quintiles representing prosperous and distressed communities, respectively. Outpatient claims were used to identify any CR use within 1 year of discharge. Beneficiary and CR facility zip codes were used to describe access to CR facilities. Adjusted logistic regression models evaluated the association between Distressed Community Index quintiles, CR use, and clinical outcomes, including one-year mortality, all-cause hospitalization, and acute myocardial infarction hospitalization.
RESULTS: A total of 414 730 beneficiaries were identified, with 96 929 (23.4%) located in the first and 67 900 (16.4%) in the fifth quintiles, respectively. Any CR use was lower for beneficiaries in distressed compared with prosperous communities (26.0% versus 46.1%, P<0.001), which was significant after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.40-0.42]). A total of 98 458 (23.7%) beneficiaries had a CR facility within their zip code, which increased from 16.3% in prosperous communities to 26.6% in distressed communities. Any CR use was associated with absolute reductions in mortality (-6.8% [95% CI, -7.0% to -6.7%]), all-cause hospitalization (-5.9% [95% CI, -6.3% to -5.6%]), and acute myocardial infarction hospitalization (-1.3% [95% CI, -1.5% to -1.1%]), which were similar across each Distressed Community Index quintiles.
CONCLUSIONS: Although community-level distress was associated with lower CR participation, the clinical benefits were universally received. Addressing barriers to CR in distressed communities should be considered a significant priority to improve survival after coronary revascularization and reduce disparities.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on a 100% sample of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing inpatient coronary revascularization between July 2016 and December 2018. Community-level distress was defined using the Distressed Community Index quintile at the beneficiary zip code level, with the first and fifth quintiles representing prosperous and distressed communities, respectively. Outpatient claims were used to identify any CR use within 1 year of discharge. Beneficiary and CR facility zip codes were used to describe access to CR facilities. Adjusted logistic regression models evaluated the association between Distressed Community Index quintiles, CR use, and clinical outcomes, including one-year mortality, all-cause hospitalization, and acute myocardial infarction hospitalization.
RESULTS: A total of 414 730 beneficiaries were identified, with 96 929 (23.4%) located in the first and 67 900 (16.4%) in the fifth quintiles, respectively. Any CR use was lower for beneficiaries in distressed compared with prosperous communities (26.0% versus 46.1%, P<0.001), which was significant after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.40-0.42]). A total of 98 458 (23.7%) beneficiaries had a CR facility within their zip code, which increased from 16.3% in prosperous communities to 26.6% in distressed communities. Any CR use was associated with absolute reductions in mortality (-6.8% [95% CI, -7.0% to -6.7%]), all-cause hospitalization (-5.9% [95% CI, -6.3% to -5.6%]), and acute myocardial infarction hospitalization (-1.3% [95% CI, -1.5% to -1.1%]), which were similar across each Distressed Community Index quintiles.
CONCLUSIONS: Although community-level distress was associated with lower CR participation, the clinical benefits were universally received. Addressing barriers to CR in distressed communities should be considered a significant priority to improve survival after coronary revascularization and reduce disparities.